*The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by

designation. 

___________

No. 95-2333

___________

Gerald W. Stevens, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa.

Shirley S. Chater, * 

Commissioner of the Social * [UNPUBLISHED] 

Security Administration, ** Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 15, 1995

 Filed: February 1, 1996 ___________

Before McMILLIAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and PERRY, District

Judge.*

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gerald W. Stevens appeals the district court's affirmance of

a denial of benefits by the Social Security Administration. We

affirm.

Stevens alleges that he is disabled by reason of depression,

leg weakness, stomach ulcers, and anemia. He also has a history of

drug and alcohol abuse. At the time of his application, he was

thirty-eight years old and had been previously employed as a hide

worker, forge worker, and janitor. 
-2-

After his application was denied initially and on

reconsideration, Stevens appealed and a hearing was held before an

administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ applied the five-step

sequential analysis prescribed in the regulations. See 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1520(a)-(f). In addition, the ALJ followed the special

procedures for claimants alleging mental impairments. See 20

C.F.R. § 404.1520a; § 416.920a; Montgomery v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 98,

99 (8th Cir. 1994). In order to find a claimant disabled, the ALJ

must determine whether: 1) the claimant is working; 2) the

claimant's physical or mental impairments are severe; 3) the

claimant's impairments prevent a resumption of past work; and 4)

the claimant's impairments preclude any other type of work.

Montgomery, 30 F.3d at 99. The special procedures for mental

impairment claims also require either the ALJ or a psychiatrist to

complete a Psychiatric Review Technique Form (PRTF). See 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1520a(d)(2); Hardy v. Chater, 64 F.3d 405, 408 (8th Cir.

1995).

The ALJ found that Stevens's testimony that his symptoms

prevent him from engaging in any work activity were not credible.

The ALJ noted that Stevens's daily activities are not consistent

with someone who is unable to tolerate competitive employment. In

reaching that conclusion, the ALJ sought and considered the

opinions of mental health professionals. The ALJ also elicited the

testimony of a vocational expert who stated that although a

claimant with Stevens's limitations could not return to his

previous work, there are a number of unskilled jobs, such as a

bench assembler, marker/labeler, and inspector/hand packager, that

a claimant with Stevens's limitations could perform.

The district court affirmed the ALJ's finding, noting that the

ALJ properly discounted the testimony of Stevens's girlfriend as

biased and properly considered Stevens's limitations regarding

stress and anxiety.
-3-

Stevens contends that the district court and the ALJ erred in

discounting and ignoring the findings of consultative medical

sources and consequently posing a faulty hypothetical question to

the vocational expert. On appeal, we affirm the district court if

the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the

record as a whole. Montgomery v. Chater, 69 F.3d 273 (8th Cir.

1995). 

We have carefully reviewed the record and find that

substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision. The ALJ properly

considered the consultative psychiatric reports and concluded, like

the mental health professionals, that, although Stevens's condition

prevents performance of complex and detailed tasks, he has very few

restrictions concerning work of an unskilled nature. The

hypothetical posed by the ALJ included all impairments he found

credible. The use of a stress scale is an acceptable shorthand for

identifying a claimant's stress tolerance. Id. at 275. In this

case, psychiatric reports support the ALJ's conclusion that Stevens

could endure stress on a level of three to four on a scale of one

to ten. We find that the record supports the ALJ's finding that

Stevens could perform unskilled work that exists in the local and

national economy. We affirm. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.