Case Name: Karen OBERST, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1993-07-30
Citations: 2 F.3d 249
Docket Number: No. 92-2865
Parties: Karen OBERST, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee.
Judges: Before FAGG, Circuit Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BEAM, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 2
Pages: 249–257

Head Matter:
Karen OBERST, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee.
No. 92-2865.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 19, 1993.
Decided July 30, 1993.
Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 21, 1993.
John B. Milligan, Lincoln, NE, argued, for appellant.
Daniel A. Morris, Omaha, NE, argued (Frank V. Smith and Michael R. Fry, on the brief), for appellee.
Before FAGG, Circuit Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BEAM, Circuit Judge.
Donna E. Shalala is substituted for former Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., as an appellee in this action under Fed.R.App.P. 43(c).

Opinion:
BEAM, Circuit Judge.
Karen Oberst appeals the district court's judgment affirming the Secretary's denial of social security disability and supplemental security benefits. After careful review, we affirm.
The Secretary's denial must be upheld if substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the Secretary's conclusion that Oberst is not disabled. Baker v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 955 F.2d 552, 554 (8th Cir.1992). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough so that a reasonable mind might find it adequate to support the conclusion. Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir.1992). Thus, "if it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the agency's findings, we must affirm the decision." Id.
Oberst argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not give adequate weight to the opinion of her treating physician. She also argues that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert was flawed. She contends that the question failed to precisely relate her mental limitations and impairments, in conjunction with her work history.
Oberst is a 46-year-old female. She has a high school diploma and attended one year of college. Her past relevant work experience includes work as an office clerk, waitress, cook, housekeeper, cashier, kitchen helper, hotel maid, dish washer, and paste-out worker for a newspaper. She is a diagnosed schizophrenic and also has back problems. The ALJ found that, although her impairments prevent her from performing her past employment, there are jobs in the national and local economy, such as that of a mail clerk, that she can perform. We agree with the rationale set forth in the district court's opinion and affirm for the reasons stated in that opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.
We add only that the record shows that the vocational expert did consider the claimant's work history in forming the opinion that there were jobs in the economy that Oberst could perform. (Transcript at 56).