Opinion ID: 802092
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The ALJ's Determination of Substantial Gainful Activity

Text: Finally, Renstrom challenges the ALJ's determination that he engaged in substantial gainful activity after September 13, 2002. Citing documents indicating Renstrom earned $24,002.09 in 2002, and $12,330.00 in 2003, the ALJ stated there was no indication this work was not substantial gainful activity, and thus the ALJ concluded Renstrom engaged in substantial gainful activity through 2003. Renstrom claims these earnings were not as a result of work activity, but were from a retirement source and worker's compensation benefits. Therefore, Renstrom asserts these earnings cannot be considered for purposes of determining whether he engaged in substantial gainful activity. We need not decide whether Renstrom engaged in substantial gainful activity in 2002 and 2003 because the ALJ found Renstrom was not under a disability . . . at any time from September 13, 2002, the alleged onset date, through December 31, 2008, the date last insured[.] Therefore, any error regarding Renstrom's substantial gainful activity was harmless, because the ALJ explicitly found Renstrom was not disabled from his alleged onset date through the date he was last insuredincluding the challenged 2002 and 2003 time periods. See Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825, 830 (8th Cir.2008) (There is no indication that the ALJ would have decided differently . . . and any error by the ALJ was therefore harmless.).