Opinion ID: 2819117
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Baker's Tinnitus and Obesity

Text: Finally, Baker argues that the ALJ erred by not adequately accounting for his tinnitus and obesity. First, Baker argues that the ALJ should have categorized his tinnitus as a severe impairment at Step Two of the disability analysis. He highlights his audiology exams in late 2010 that revealed he suffered from tinnitus and hearing loss in his right ear. The VA disability decision assigned a ten percent disabling effect on Baker as a result. Thus, Baker contends that by not even mentioning his tinnitus, the ALJ committed reversible error. Baker's argument is unavailing. At Step Two, a claimant has the burden of providing evidence of functional limitations in support of his contention that he is disabled. Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007). An impairment is not severe if it amounts only to a slight abnormality that would not significantly limit the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. Id. (citing Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 153 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a)). If the impairment would have no more than a minimal effect on the claimant's ability to work, then it does not satisfy the requirement of step two. Id. (citing Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2007)). Baker testified that he believed he developed tinnitus while serving in the Marine Corps in the 1970s as an airplane mechanic; further, the -12- VA's disability decision found that it is at least as likely as not that the tinnitus is related to the claimed military noise exposure. Thus, by Baker's own admission, he has had a steady work history for more than 30 years, all while dealing with his tinnitus. Thus, Baker did not meet his burden at Step Two because he failed to show that his tinnitus significantly limited or had more than a minimal effect on his ability to work. Baker also argues that the ALJ erred by not considering his obesity and its effects on Baker's ability to perform physical activity within the work environment. The ALJ's decision indicates otherwise. We have held that when an ALJ references the claimant's obesity during the claim evaluation process, such review may be sufficient to avoid reversal. Heino v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 873, 881 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Brown ex rel. Williams v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 1150, 1153 (8th Cir. 2004)). In Heino, we upheld an ALJ's decision in the face of a similar challenge because the ALJ considered the claimant's obesity by mentioning the claimant's height and weight, stating the heaviest weight the claimant had ever been, and considering obesity in his hypothetical to the vocational expert. Id. In the present case, the ALJ also sufficiently considered Baker's obesity in numerous references. The ALJ found that Baker's obesity was a severe impairment under Step Two and noted Baker's height and weight. Also, the ALJ found that Baker's obesity did not qualify as a listed impairment under Step Three. Before reaching Step Four, the ALJ also accounted for Baker's attempts at weight loss throughout his medical history. Because the ALJ specifically took [Baker]'s obesity into account in his evaluation, we will not reverse that decision. Id. at 881–82.