Opinion ID: 221232
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Buckner

Text: This court has long required an ALJ to consider the following factors when evaluating a claimant's credibility: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the duration, intensity, and frequency of pain; (3) the precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; (5) any functional restrictions; (6) the claimant's work history; and (7) the absence of objective medical evidence to support the claimant's complaints. Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 524 (8th Cir.2009) (citing Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 933, 935 (8th Cir.2008); Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir.1984)). ALJs need not explicitly discuss each Polaski factor. Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 791 (8th Cir.2005) (quotation and citation omitted). Although an ALJ may not discount a claimant's allegations of disabling pain solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them, the ALJ may find that these allegations are not credible if there are inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole. Id. at 792 (internal quotations and citations omitted). We will defer to the ALJ's credibility finding if the ALJ explicitly discredits a claimant's testimony and gives a good reason for doing so. Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 968 (8th Cir.2010) (quotation and citation omitted). Here, the ALJ expressly found that Buckner's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his symptoms were not credible. Although the ALJ did not explicitly cite Polaski, he clearly considered the following factors: Buckner's daily activities, the effectiveness of his medication and other treatments, his work history, and the absence of objective medical evidence to support his complaints. Regarding Buckner's daily activities, the ALJ noted that in Buckner's disability questionnaire and his hearing testimony, Buckner stated that he was able to care for his son and his girlfriend (who was frequently ill), do house-cleaning, do some yard work, leave his residence nearly every day, ride in a car, go out alone, go shopping in stores, manage his finances, use a computer, play sports occasionally, socialize and play games with friends or family members and attend religious services. The ALJ found these statements to be inconsistent with Buckner's claims of disabling pain. Next, regarding Buckner's medication and treatment, the ALJ stated that Buckner's hypertension is not always controlled by medication, but [he] has apparently made no effort to improve his blood pressure reading by losing weight or eliminating tobacco use. Additionally, the ALJ found that Buckner's sporadic work history prior to his alleged disability date indicates that he was not strongly motivated to engage in meaningful productive activity even prior to the alleged onset of disability and weighs against his credibility in assigning reasons for not working. Finally, the ALJ found that Buckner's complaints were not supported by objective medical evidence. The ALJ noted that (1) Buckner's back problems were diagnosed as mild and did not warrant further testing or treatment; (2) his depression and headaches never required regular psychiatric or psychological treatment[,] ... and the record contains minimal documentation of complaints of headaches; and (3) Dr. Hwang's examination report indicated that Buckner had full range of motion in all extremities, no sign of arthritis, full grip strength, and the ability to lift up to 50 pounds occasionally. The ALJ did not err by failing to discuss expressly some of the other factors, including any side effects from Buckner's medication. See Moore, 572 F.3d at 524. Our review of the ALJ's decision, in light of the entire administrative record, shows that there were inconsistencies between Buckner's allegations of pain and the evidence as a whole. See Goff, 421 F.3d at 792 (explaining that [t]he ALJ may disbelieve subjective complaints if there are inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole (quotation and citation omitted)). As a result, the ALJ did not err in evaluating Buckner's credibility. [8]