Opinion ID: 2808322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wright's Testimony

Text: Wright next argues that the ALJ erred by finding his testimony of subjective pain and functionality incredible due to the inconsistencies in his work history, daily activities, and failure to adhere to treatments. [C]redibility is primarily a matter for the ALJ to decide. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1218 (8th Cir. 2001)). An ALJ . . . may disbelieve subjective reports because of inherent inconsistencies or other circumstances. Travis v. Astrue, 477 F.3d 1037, 1042 (8th Cir. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). In addition to the objective medical basis that should support the subjective testimony of disabling pain, this court takes into account all of the evidence presented relating to subjective complaints, including the claimant's prior work record, and observations by third parties and treating and examining physicians. Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). Polaski outlined a list of five factors which this court and ALJs must take into account when judging the credibility of testimony on subjective pain: 1. the claimant's daily activities; 2. the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; 3. precipitating and aggravating factors; 4. dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; 5. functional restrictions. Id. 3 Wright also asserts that the ALJ ignore[d] Dr. Russell's testimony and found that [his testimony] did not exist. This argument has little merit because the ALJ acknowledged that he did take Dr. Russell's testimony into account, but only assigned it little weight. -10- The ALJ found Wright's work history troubling for two reasons: First, Wright claimed he had not worked since 2008, but the onset of his disability was in 2010; and second, Wright did not report any earnings for the tax years of 2006, 2007, and 2008, which is inconsistent with his reported work history that did not end until 2008. Wright only briefly addresses the ALJ's first finding by arguing that the reason he was not working from 2008–10 was because this was a period in which he previously applied for social security benefits but was similarly denied. Wright seemingly ignores the ALJ's second point, however, and offers no explanation why he did not report any income for 2006–08 if he was supposedly working full time as a wallpaper hanger during that period. Even more troubling is Wright's work history going back over thirty years. Since 1978, Wright has reported not having any earnings a total of eight times. Out of the 26 years he has reported earnings, half of those years he reported earning less than $5,000 and never reported earning more than $20,000. While Wright suffered severe automobile accidents in 1987 and 2000, it appears his inability or unwillingness to find gainful employment preceded these events. See Holley v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1088, 1091 (8th Cir. 2001) (discussing an ALJ decision where the claimant's work history suggested poor motivation and called his disability claim into question). It appears that Wright is either untruthful in reporting his income or he is untruthful in portraying his work history. Either way, this evidence supports the ALJ's discounting of Wright's credibility. Review of the record also reveals the ALJ properly considered other Polaski factors in discrediting Wright's testimony of disabling pain and forming the RFC. Wright himself admits to engaging in daily activities that this court has previously found inconsistent with disabling pain, such as driving, shopping, bathing, and cooking. See, e.g., Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003) (finding that the claimant's shopping, driving short distances, attending church, and visiting relatives were inconsistent with suffering disabling pain); Lawrence v. Chater, 107 F.3d 674, 676 (8th Cir. 1997) (finding that the claimant's dressing herself, bathing herself, cooking, and shopping was inconsistent with disabling pain). Additionally, -11- the ALJ noted that Wright's credibility suffered from his refusal to take pain medication and his refusal to seek out even conservative treatments such as physical therapy. See Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 966 (8th Cir. 2009) (finding a claimant's noncompliance with a diet regimen prescribed by their doctor contributed to a negative credibility determination). Further, Wright's complaints of disabling pain are also undercut by the eight-month period during which he sought no medical care. Given the ALJ's findings of inconsistencies in Wright's work history and consideration of the Polaski factors, we conclude that substantial evidence supports its credibility finding.