1 Michael J. Astrue has been appointedto serve as Commissioner of Social Security and is substituted as appellee pursu ant to Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3569

___________ Jerry M. Porter, *
* Plaintiff - Appellant, *
* v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Michael J. Astrue, 1 * Western District of Missouri. Commissioner of Social Security, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellee, *
* United States Attorney, Todd P. * Graves; Office of General Counsel; * U.S. Attorney General, *
* Defendants. *

___________ Submitted: June 15, 2007 Filed: July 3, 2007

___________ Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.2 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
-2- Jerry M. Porter filed an application fo r disability insurance benefits, which was denied by the Social Security Administrati on (SSA). Porter sought review before an administrative law judge (ALJ), who conducte d a hearing and ruled that Porter was not entitled to benefits. The SSA Appeal s Council denied review, thereby rendering the ALJ's decision final. Porter sought review in the District Court, 2which affirmed the decision of the agency. Po rter appeals, and we affirm.

We review de novo the decision of the District Court affirming the agency's denial of benefits. Nicola v. Astrue , 480 F.3d 885, 886 (8th Ci r. 2007). Our task is to determine whether the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person would consider adequate to s upport the ALJ's conclusion. Id. If the record contains insufficient evidence to support the outcome , we will reverse the ALJ's decision, but we will not reverse merely because we may have reached a differe nt conclusion. Id.

In support of his claim, Porter testified that he could no longer work as a bus driver because he suffers from mental a nd emotional problems, cannot bend or lift, can only walk a few yards at a time, can sit for no more than one hour and stand for no more than fifteen minutes at a time, and has breathing problems. The ALJ found that Porter's testimony was "no more than partially credible and not credible insofar as he has alleged numerous complaints and allegations which are unsupported in the medical record." Admin. R. at 13. A dditionally, Porter's treating physician submitted a letter in which he opined that Porter "i s completely and totally disabled" owing to altered cardiac, lung, and renal function, and compromised circulatory function. Id. at 213. The ALJ found that the treating physician's opinion was "completely inconsistent with the record." Id. at 13. The ALJ then found that Porter's impairments-3- do not prevent him from performing his past relevant work and that Porter is not disabled. The ALJ therefore concluded that Porter is not entitled to disability benefits.

Porter asserts that the ALJ's adverse cr edibility finding contradicts this Court's statement that an ALJ "may not disregard a claimant's subjective complaints solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them." Polaski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam order). As this Court further explained in Polaski , however, while an ALJ "is not free to accept or reject the claimant's subjective complaint's solely on the basis of personal observations[,] [s]ubjective complaints may be discounted if there are inconsiste ncies in the evidence as a whole." Id. Such inconsistencies exist in this case. At the administrative hearing, a medical expert who had reviewed Porter's medical records testified that the records provided no basis for most of Po rter's physical complaints; the records provided no support for Porter's mental compla ints; and Porter's ability to sit, stand, or walk should not be restricted on account of his impairments. Moreover, the ALJ noted the lack of physical examinations th at would support Porter's claims of muscle atrophy and the lack of objective evidence to support Porter's claims of mental impairments. Given these inconsistencies in the record, the ALJ did not err in discounting Porter's testimony.

With regard to the treating physician's letter, Porter asserts that the ALJ improperly refused to accept the opinion. "Although a treating physician's opinion is generally entitled to substantial weight, su ch opinion does not automatically control, since the record must be evaluated as a whole." Charles v. Barnhart , 375 F.3d 777, 783 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and quotations omitted). Evaluating the record as a whole, the treating physician's opinion is contradicted by other evidence. Most notably, the testimony of the medical expert completely contradicts the treating physician's opinion concerning Porter's disability. Moreover, the ALJ noted that Porter has been advised to exercise three times weekly, and this recommendation is inconsistent with the treating physician' s opinion concerning his physical limitations.-4- This evidence, combined withthe lack of objective eviden ce to support Porter's claims of physical impairments, supports the ALJ' s refusal to give the treating physician's opinion controlling weight. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in this regard.

Finally, Porter contends that th e ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. In addition to the evidence discussed above , a vocational expert testified that a hypothetical person with Port er's age, work history, and impairment characteristics could perform Porter's past relevant work as a bus driver. This testimony, coupled with that of the medical expert, shows that the ALJ's determination that Porter could perform his past releva nt work was reasonable. Additionally, the medical expert's testimony and the lack of objective evidence to support Porter's claims of physical and mental ailments show that the ALJ's determination that Porter is not disabled was reasonable. We are satisfied that the ALJ's decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

______________________________