Charles Bryant v. Nancy A. Berryhill, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11584

Charles Bryant, 63, applied for DIB and SSI claiming disability from a May 25, 2012 motorcycle accident (severely comminuted left tibia/fibula fracture), gout, and alleged rheumatoid/osteoarthritis; ALJ denied benefits and the denial was affirmed by the Magistrate Judge and this court.
Bryant underwent intramedullary nailing and was released to resume full work activities by Dr. Cooper in February 2013; he returned to work ~1.5 months then retired in May 2013, claiming leg swelling, but sought no immediate medical reassessment or attempts to find other work.
Subsequent imaging and examinations (Jan–July 2014) showed complete fracture union, removal of irritating screws, normal gait, range of motion, and releases to normal activity; treating physicians did not impose work restrictions.
Longstanding intermittent gout was treated episodically without work restrictions; rheumatoid factor was negative and there was no treating-physician diagnosis of disabling rheumatoid arthritis.
ALJ found Bryant had severe impairments (fractured leg, gout, diabetes) but not impairments meeting listed criteria, assessed residual functional capacity (RFC) for the full range of medium work, discounted Bryant’s subjective symptom claims, and relied on vocational expert testimony that Bryant could perform his past medium-level warehouse work.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports the RFC finding that Bryant can perform medium work	Bryant contends the record shows disabling limitations from his leg injury, gout, and arthritis that preclude medium work	Commissioner argues medical records show healed fracture, lack of treating restrictions, normal exam findings, and the vocational expert supports ability to do medium work	Court held substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC finding for full range of medium work
Whether ALJ properly evaluated claimant credibility	Bryant argues ALJ improperly discounted his symptom testimony	Commissioner argues ALJ reasonably applied Polaski factors, citing inconsistencies with medical record, daily activities, retirement choices, and lack of ongoing treatment	Court held ALJ’s credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence and proper consideration of Polaski factors

Lawson v. Colvin, 807 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of appellate review and substantial-evidence test)
Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) (factors for evaluating subjective complaints)
Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2011) (vocational expert testimony to support denial when hypothetical matches ALJ’s findings)
Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ must acknowledge and consider Polaski factors)
Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2009) (treatment of Polaski/credibility analysis)
Naber v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 186 (8th Cir. 1994) (work history probative on disability assertions)
Whitman v. Colvin, 762 F.3d 701 (8th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may consider claimant’s lack of medical care in credibility assessment)
Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 2003) (medical record not supporting disabling pain supports discounting subjective complaints)
Vester v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2005) (deference to ALJ credibility findings if supported by good reasons and substantial evidence)
Brown v. Chater, 87 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 1996) (absence of significant medical restrictions inconsistent with disabling pain claims)
Smith v. Shalala, 987 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1993) (lack of medical restrictions relevant to credibility)
Barnes v. Social Security Administration, 171 F.3d 1181 (8th Cir. 1999) (no evidence of deterioration or need for accommodations supports denial)