### The Honorable Rodney S. Webb, Chief Judge, United State s 1 

### Dis trict Court for the District of North Dakota, adopting th e report and recommendation of the Honorable Karen K. Klein, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota. ___________ No. 96-1342

___________ Gregory L. Bockness, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner * of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

__________ Submitted: December 27, 1996 Filed: January 9, 1997

__________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gr egoryL. Bockness appeals the district court's grant of summar y 1 judgm ent affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's (Commissioner ) dec ision to deny Bockness disability insurance benefits (DIB) an d supplemental security income (SSI). We affirm.

Boc kness applied for DIB and SSI benefits based upon back an d shoulder pain. Evidence at a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) indicated that Bockness suffered from a personality disorder, drug and alcohol addiction (in remission since 1982),

### -2-

depression, LSD flashbacks, loss of memory, lack of concentration, impaire d judgme nt, and daily headaches caused by Bockness's antidepressan t medication.

Ba sed on Bockness's testimony, his medical records, and vocationa l expert and physician testimony, the ALJ denied Bockness DIB and SS I benefits. The ALJ concluded that there was no m edical evidence to support Bockness's complaints of physical disability, that Bockness's subjective descri ption of pain was not credible, and that Bockness's psychologica l problems did not prev ent him from performing nonexertional work which did not involve more than superficial contact with coworkers or the genera l public. Examples of the type of employment that Bockness could perfor m included cleaner/polisher, light assembler, entr y level office worker, and security positions.

We shall affirm the Commissioner's decision denying DIB and SS I benefits if the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the recor d
as a whole. See Ostronski v. Chater , 94 F.3d 413, 416 (8th Cir. 1996)

. On app eal, Bockness asserts that the ALJ improperly assessed Bockness' s credi bility, improperly discounted the testimony of Bockness's treatin g physician, and ignored evidence of organic brain damage.

In Pola ski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) , this Court set out a multi-factored analysis for assessing the credibility of a claimant's allegations of disabling conditions. In addition t o objective medical evidence, subjective descripti ons of pain and incapacity must also be considered and may be evaluated in light of evidence of the claimant's daily activities and the effects of medication, as well as othe r factors. Id. at 1322. In this case, range-of-motion, x-ray, an d neurological examinations of Bockness yielded no rmal results. Evidence at Bo ckness's administrative hearing revealed that pain from Bockness' s headaches could be controlled with over-the-counter

### Furthermore, evidence suggested that Bock ness had significant 2 

### motivational problems. Bockness refused to accept alternati ve work programs pending his disability determination, Bockness's medical records indicated repeated con cern for his lack of motivation, and Bockness testified that he "wo uld rather play the guitar than work

. . . ." Tr. of Admin. H'rg at 30 (Aug. 3, 1993), reprinted i n Admin. R. at 66. This apparent lack of motivation was a prope r factor for the ALJ to consider in evaluating the credibility o f Bockne ss's complaints. See, e.g. , Locker v. Sullivan , 968 F.2 d 725, 728-29 (8th Cir. 1991). -3- medica tions and the prescription drug Doxepin. Testimony also reveale d that Bockness's daily activities included guitar-playing, driving, reading , and helping his mother with chores and grocery shopping. In l ight of this 2 evidence , we do not believe that the ALJ erred in concluding tha t Bockness's subjective complaints were not credible.
Although a treating physician's opinion is generally accorded great weight, see Ghant v. Bowen , 930 F.2d 633, 639 (8th Cir. 1991), we hold tha t the A LJ properly rejected Bockness's treating psychiatrist's conclusio n that Bockness "will not be able to maintain substantial and gainfu l activity." Letter from Dr. R. A. Aligada to Bonnie J. Askew at 1 , reprinted inAppellant's App. at 85. This ultimate conclusion is not a medical determinationwithin the competence of a physician, see Nelson v. Sullivan , 946 F.2d 13 14, 1316-17 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam), but rather is a l egal determination which must be made by the Commissioner. I n addition, Bockness's treating psychiatrist's conclusion was cursory , conflicted with the psychiatrist's own treatment notes, and was based in part on Bockness's pu rported physical impairments that were discounted by the ALJ. In these circumstances, the ALJ properly rejected th e psychi atrist's unsupported conclusion. See Piepgras v. Chater , 76 F.3 d 233 , 236 (8th Cir. 1996) (treating physician's opinion given no greate r defer ence than that of other physicians where the opinion is vague an d conclusory).
We reject Bockness's contention that the ALJ improperly

### -4-

ignored evidence that Bockness suffered from organic brain damage

. Psyc hological testing revealed no organic brain damage, and Bockness' s assertion that he suffered from LSD flashbacks--first mentioned i n Bockness's testimony before the ALJ--was adequat ely considered by the ALJ. Finall y, we conclude that Bockness's suggestion that his physical pai n derives from a somatoform disorder must be rejected, as there is no suppor t for this suggestion in Bockness's treatment records.

A true copy.

Attest:

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