Opinion ID: 182338
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Johnson's Subjective Complaints of Disabling Pain

Text: At the August 2007 hearing, Johnson testified that lupus makes my bones ache. . . like they've been twisted, that she was in nearly constant pain and occasionally had trouble breathing, and that she must lie down from exhaustion most every afternoon. On bad days  probably half of the month  I can't hardly move [and] I stay in bed a lot. A friend testified that Johnson moved very slowly on bad days, that her energy level had decreased since she became ill, and that she had lost a great deal of weight. The ALJ found that these allegations of disabling pain and discomfort were not credible because Johnson received minimal medical treatment, and her impairments never forced her to quit a job. Johnson argues that the ALJ disbelieved her testimony for demonstrably false reasons that constitute reversible error under Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir.1984), which requires an ALJ expressly to consider enumerated factors and to discount a claimant's subjective complaints of pain only if there are inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. We agree the ALJ's opinion did not adequately acknowledge that Johnson's complaints were consistent with the medical authorities that describe and discuss the typical effects of lupus. But the critical question is whether her lupus had progressed to the point at which it would be disabling. On this question, Johnson's testimony was simply not borne out by the medical evidence of record. She frequently reported and was treated with medications for recurring pain, but the treating physicians she saw regularly from 2004 until 2007 consistently reported findings such as no joint swelling, no other complaints [other than chest pain], or doing well, entries inconsistent with the levels of pain and fatigue she described at the hearing. See Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842, 853 (8th Cir.2007). Although the record would also have supported a contrary finding, this inconsistency justified the ALJ in discounting Johnson's subjective complaints of disabling pain. Johnson clearly suffers from the effects of lupus, and if the disease progresses in severity, as often happens, she will doubtless become disabled. But during the period in question, we agree with the district court that the administrative record as a whole provided substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding that Johnson retained the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work and therefore was not disabled. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.