Case Name: John I. BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-09
Citations: 121 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 04-1498
Parties: John I. BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 121
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
John I. BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-1498.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 17, 2004.
Decided Feb. 9, 2005.
James EL Green, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David Detar Newbert, Asst. U.S. Atty, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Following surgery to repair a badly fractured shoulder and arm in April 2000, John I. Bell applied for social security disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. After a hearing at which Bell testified that he cannot close his left hand or grasp small objects, cannot raise his left arm, and has constant pain in his left hand and shoulder plus chronic back pain, the administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that Bell is not entitled to benefits because, although he has severe impairments to his left arm and back, his subjective complaints of disabling pain are not credible and he retains the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work as sales clerk and head cashier.
Bell then filed this action against the Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of the adverse agency decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Bell argued that the ALJ failed to fully investigate the physical and mental demands of Bell's past relevant work and improperly relied on the testimony of a vocational expert whose description of Bell's past relevant work conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner, concluding in a thorough opinion that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the agency's decision, that the ALJ with the assistance of the vocational expert made an adequate inquiry into the nature of Bell's past relevant work as he actually performed it, and that the vocational expert's testimony did not conflict with the DOT. Bell appeals, raising the same issues to this court. After careful review of the administrative record, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's Order dated January 27, 2004.
. The HONORABLE RICHARD E. DORR, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.