Case Name: Roger PIERCE, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1999-04-20
Citations: 173 F.3d 704
Docket Number: No. 98-2139
Parties: Roger PIERCE, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee.
Judges: BEFORE: FAGG, HEANEY, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 173
Pages: 704–713

Head Matter:
Roger PIERCE, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee.
No. 98-2139.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 16, 1998.
Filed April 20, 1999.
Rehearing Denied June 21, 1999.
E. Gregory Wallace, Buies Creek, NC, argued (Anthony W. Bartels, Jonesboro, AR, in addition) for appellant.
Rosanne M. Dummer, Dallas, TX, argued (Paula J. Casey, U.S. Atty. and Tina M. Waddell, Dallas, TX, on the brief), for appellee.
BEFORE: FAGG, HEANEY, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
Roger Pierce appeals from the district court's judgment affirming the denial of his application for social security disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. For reversal, Pierce argues that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert failed to accurately describe his mental impairments. We affirm.
I.
Pierce, who was born on September 16, 1942, was 49 years of age when he applied for benefits. He has a seventh-grade education. His past relevant work history includes work as a farmer and as a packer of shock absorbers. Pierce filed an application for disability insurance benefits on May 13, 1991, alleging a disability onset date of July 15, 1989. He claimed that he was disabled because of stress, anxiety, a nervous stomach, bodily aches, depression, and a right ankle metal plate and screw.
The Social Security Administration denied Pierce's application originally and again on reconsideration. Pierce appealed, and the district court reversed and remanded his case for further administrative proceedings. A supplemental hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on October 2, 1995, and on May 30, 1996, Pierce's application was again denied.
The ALJ evaluated Pierce's claim according to the five-step analysis prescribed by the Social Security Regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) — (f); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987) (describing the five-step process). The ALJ concluded that Pierce's impairments did not meet or equal an impairment listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4. The ALJ also found that Pierce could not return to his past relevant work as a farmer or packer. After considering the response of a vocational expert to a hypothetical question, the ALJ found that Pierce was not disabled.
The Appeals Council denied Pierce's request for further review, and the ALJ's decision thereby became the final decision of the Commissioner. Pierce subsequently appealed to the district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, finding that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's decision to deny Pierce disability benefits.
II.
Our role on review is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Clark v. Apfel, 141 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir.1998). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the Commissioner's conclusion. See Woolf v. Shalala, 3 F.3d 1210, 1213 (8th Cir.1993). In determining whether the existing evidence is substantial, "we must consider evidence that detracts from the [Commissioner's] decision as well as evidence that supports it." Id. We may not reverse the Commissioner's decision merely because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome. See Smith v. Shalala, 987 F.2d 1371, 1374 (8th Cir.1993).
The ALJ found that Pierce retained the ability to occasionally lift and carry up to 25 pounds; stand and walk for four hours in an eight-hour work period, one without interruption; and sit for six hours in an eight-hour work period, two without interruption. Further, the ALJ concluded that Pierce could on occasion climb, balance, stoop, crouch, kneel, crawl, reach, handle, feel, and that he could push or pull with slight impairment. The ALJ also found that Pierce had no impairment involving his ability to. see, hear, or speak. See Admin. Tr. at 278. In evaluating Pierce's mental impairments, the ALJ concluded:
He is likewise evaluated with good ability to follow work rules; relate to coworkers; deal with the public; use judgement; interact with supervisors; function independently; maintain attention/concentration; understand, remember, [and] carry out complex job instructions; maintain personal appearance; behave [in an] emotionally stable manner; relate predictably in social situations; and good ability to demonstrate reliability.
Finally, the claimant is assessed with a fair ability to deal with stresses and a very good ability to understand, remember, carry out simple job instructions and understand, remember, and carry out detailed but not complex job instructions.
Admin. Tr. at 278.
The ALJ posed a hypothetical question to a vocational expert that recounted the foregoing findings regarding residual functional capacity. The vocational expert testified that a person with the described physical and mental limitations could perform a variety of sedentary jobs, such as manufacturing, of which 20,000 were available.
"Testimony from a VE based on a properly-phrased hypothetical question constitutes substantial evidence." Roe v. Chater, 92 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir.1996). A proper hypothetical question presents to the vocational expert a set of limitations that mirror those of the claimant. See id. at 676. "Questions posed to a vocational expert should precisely set out the claimant's particular physical and mental impairments." Totz v. Sullivan, 961 F.2d 727, 730 (8th Cir.1992). Pierce contends that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert failed to state precisely the extent of his mental limitations. He asserts that the mental limitations outlined in the hypothetical question are inconsistent with the findings of Dr. Tom Heisler, the Commissioner's consulting psychologist, who noted on a medical assessment checklist that Pierce retained only a fair ability to function independently, to maintain attention and concentration, and to demonstrate reliability. Pierce argues that the ALJ is bound by Dr. Heisler's findings. In Bentley v. Shalala, 52 F.3d 784, 786-87 (8th Cir.1995), however, we stated that the government does not have to "live with" an expert's conclusions simply because the' government hired the expert to evaluate the claimant. The ALJ may reject the conclusions of any medical expert, whether hired by the claimant or the government, if they are inconsistent with the record as a whole. See id. at 787.
We believe that the record as a whole supports the ALJ's findings regarding Pierce's mental limitations. Pierce's own testimony indicates that he considers himself to be independent and reliable. He testified that so long as he is not suffering from a headache, he is able to maintain attention and concentration. In response to a question whether he could stay at home alone for one or two weeks, Pierce responded, "there wouldn't have to be nobody to tell me what to do and what not to do." Pierce also testified that if told to be somewhere at a certain time, he would be there if he could find someone to drive him. In a word, Pierce's responses are indicative of a person who, if put to the test of performing responsibly in the workaday world, would be able to function at a capacity consistent with that attributed to him by the ALJ. Accordingly, we conclude that the hypothetical question posed by the ALJ accurately set forth Pierce's mental limitations and abilities and that the vocational expert's testimony in response to the question constituted evidence sufficient to support the ALJ's finding that Pierce is not disabled.
The judgment is affirmed.
. The Honorable Jerry Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was submitted by consent of the parlies under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
. The Medical Assessment of Ability to do Work-Related Activities (Mental) provides the following definitions:
Good — Ability to function in this area is limited but satisfactory.
Fair — Ability to function in this area is seriously limited, but not precluded.
See Admin. Tr. at 250.