Allen Sampson appeals the district court’s 1 judgmеnt affirming the denial of his application for social security disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. We affirm.
I.
Sampson is forty-five years old аnd has a high-school education. His past relevant work includes experience as an assembler for the Ford Motor Company. Sampsоn has been unable to work since a head-on automobile accident on November 24, 1993. On March 23, 1994, he filed an application for disability insurance benefits, alleging a disability onset date of November 24,1993. He claimed to be disabled and unable to work because of a separated disc, neck and back pain, and numbness in his right hand, all as a result of the accident.
The Social Security Administration denied Sampson’s application initially and again on reconsideration. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Sampson had not engaged in substantial
*618
gainful activity since November 24, 1993. The ALJ also found that he presented orthopedic problems involving the low back, pain in the neck and shoulder, and numbness in thе right hand. Nonetheless, the ALJ concluded that Sampson did not have impairments, when considered singularly or in combination, which met or equaled the сriteria found in the Listings of Impairments.
See
Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4. The ALJ further found that although Sampson was unable to perform work as an assembler, he had the residual functional capacity to perform a significant number of jobs in the local and national economies and therefore was not disabled.
See Bowen v. Yuckert,
The Appeals Council denied Sampson’s request for further review, and the ALJ’s decision thereby became the final decision of the Commissioner. Sampson subsequently appealed to the district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, finding that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s decision to deny Sampson disability benefits. On appeal, Sampson contends that the ALJ improperly concluded that the medical evidence contradicts the opinion of his treating physician and incorrectly discountеd his subjective complaints of pain as not credible.
II.
Our role on review is to determine whether the Commissioner’s findings áre supported by substantial evidеnce in the record as a whole.
See Clark v. Apfel,
We first address Sampson’s argument that the ALJ improperly discredited the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Bowles. On October 1, 1994, Dr. Bowles indicated that Sampson’s constant low back pain and persistеnt neck pain were incapacitating for any type of work for which Sampson was trained. Dr. Bowles also stated that Sampson was totаlly unable to perform any type of work that involved bending, lifting, or squatting. The ALJ is not required, however, to adopt the opinion of a physician on the ultimate issue of a claimant’s ability to engage in gainful employment.
See Behnen v. Califano,
The ALJ’s decision discussed the medical evaluations аnd treatment notes provided by Dr. Bowles, along with the treatment notes of Dr. Jenny and Dr. Ebelke, who also treated Sampson. Dr. Bowles’s treatment notеs state that Sampson had “unexplained low back pain syndrome” and “unexplained ref-ractoriness to all kinds of therapy.” Dr. Bowles stated, however, that “when I asked him to take off his shoes and put them back on he exhibited much better bending and flexibility of the back (when I was not watching) than he did under a test circumstance.”
X-rays taken of Sampson’s back in 1993 and 1994 revealed a minimal central bulge at the C3-4 and a minimal central bulge with a small central focal disc herniation at L4-5. Dr. Ebelke reported that, after surgery in 1995, Sampson’s medical condition improved with the positioning of an “instrumentation with maintenance and good development of the bone graft.” The treatment notes also indicate normal strength, tone, and coordination levels. Sampson’s neurological examina *619 tion revealed fall motor strength in his lower extremities. Dr. Ebelke also noted that Samрson performed a complete hip rotation without pain. Moreover, Sampson was cleared to return to work in October 1994. Thus, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision not to abide by the opinion of Sampson’s treating physician.
We next consider Sampson’s argument thаt the ALJ improperly discredited his subjective complaints of pain. “As is true in many disability cases, there is no doubt that the claimant is experiencing рain; the real issue is how severe that pain is.”
Spradling v. Chater,
Applying the foregoing factors, the ALJ concluded that Sampson’s complaints of disabling pain lacked credibility. As discussed above, there is no substantial evidence in the record of a disabling condition. Sampson stated that he can sit for ten minutes, and stand for twenty minutes at a time. He is able to walk up to three-quarters of a mile without the use of a supporting device. Sampson reported that at one time he was walking four to five miles each day. Sampson also acknowledged that he drives аn automobile, makes his bed, loads the dishwasher, and watches television on a daily basis. The ALJ also noted Sampson’s unwillingness to continue with physical therapy despite his ability to complete the therapy without many complaints. The treatment notes indicate that he was just “going through the motions.”
See
20 C.F.R. 404.1530(b);
see also Kisling v. Chater,
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
Notes
. The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.