Opinion ID: 512019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Capacity to Perform Light Work

Text: 13 The Secretary's regulations require the ALJ to consider a claimant's residual functional capacity and whether he can still perform the type of employment he has performed in the past. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520(e). 14 To have the residual functional capacity to perform [l]ight work, an individual must be able to frequently lift and carry objects weighing up to ten pounds and be able to occasionally lift objects weighing up to twenty pounds. Id. at Sec. 404.1567(b). Hall testified that he was unable to lift twenty pounds and uncertain of whether he could lift ten pounds. Reports made out by three physicians who examined Hall, however, were somewhat more encouraging. Dr. R. Lawrence Thienes examined Hall on October 27, 1983, and observed normal flexion of the spine and normal neurological findings. He stated that most of Hall's symptoms appear to be psychophysiological, musculoskeletal in etiology and could be remedied by having a job. During the period between February 5 and March 14, 1984, Dr. J.H. Wallestad examined Hall three times and advised that he seek employment which would not require heavy lifting or repetitive bending, stooping or twisting-type activities to his back. Finally, Dr. R.E. Heeter who examined Hall in early 1986 concluded that he was capable of doing light work and should not be considered totally disabled because of his back. 15 The reports by these three examining physicians stating that Hall should seek employment and the psychological and psychiatric reports concluding that Hall's difficulty with pain is related to depression rather than a somatoform disorder provide substantial evidence that contradicts Hall's testimony that the pain he experienced prevents him from performing light work. In viewing the record as a whole, there is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's determination that Hall is capable of performing light work. 16 The ALJ's conclusion that Hall can perform light work, coupled with the facts that he is a younger individual and has some ability to communicate in English, led to the finding that Hall is not disabled under the Secretary's guidelines. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, table no. 2, rule 202.17. The ALJ, however, also found that Hall is no longer capable of performing relevant past employment. The consequence of this finding is that the burden shifts to the Secretary to prove that other work is available which claimant is able to perform. Parsons v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1334, 1339 (8th Cir.1984). 17 To assess Hall's remaining vocational capacity, the ALJ retained a vocational expert, Julie Harren, to testify at the hearing. The ALJ posed a hypothetical to Harren which required her to suggest available employment for an individual with Hall's mental limitations and physical ailments. Harren stated that an individual sharing Hall's mental and physical characteristics--including his problems with depression and some preoccupation with his physical health--could attain employment as a ticket taker at a theater, a security guard who checks identification, a car wash attendant, an assembler, and a packager or products inspector on an assembly line. 4 Hall claims that the ALJ's hypothetical assumed facts that were not supported by the record. However, in light of the fact that there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the ALJ's findings that Hall does not suffer from a somatoform disorder and that Hall is able to perform light work, the ALJ's hypothetical was not deficient. Ward v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 844, 848 (8th Cir.1986). Harren's testimony adequately demonstrates the existence of employment that Hall is capable of performing and the Secretary has sustained his burden in this matter. 18 Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed.