Grеgory Kelley, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee.
No. 03-3255
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
June 17, 2004
Before RILEY and MELLOY, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON, District Judge.
Submitted: March 11, 2004
I.
Kelley applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (the “Act“),
The ALJ determined that Kelley‘s physical and mental impairments, individually and collectively, were not severe. In reaching this determination, the ALJ discounted Kelley‘s complaints as well as Kelley‘s рersonal descriptions of his limitations. The Appeals Council declined further review, and the ALJ‘s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. The district court affirmed. On appеal, Kelley argues that the ALJ failed to consider certain evidence favorable to a finding of a severe impairment, namely, the opinion of a consulting, non-treating psychiatrist, Dr. Scоtt Morrison. Kelley argues specifically that, in light of Dr. Morrison‘s opinion, there is not substantial evidence to support the ALJ‘s
Kelley‘s past relevant work experience was as a machine operator at a factory. Kelley lost his job as a machine operator in 1999 when his employer‘s business closed. He then worked briefly as a production laborer until he was laid off. Kelley did not leave employment due to his medical condition.
Kelley testified he was on mеdication for itching, insomnia, and depression, the medications helped “a little bit,” and they caused no adverse side effects. He claimed to have lesions on his neck, back, hands, and fеet and claimed this skin condition affected his ability to work. He described his ability to work as limited because he could only sit for one to two hours at a time, stand for one hour at a time, and walk fоr one-half block. In addition, he claimed fatigue limited his ability to lift. He said he would not be able to perform his past relevant work as a machine operator because he was intolеrant to sunlight and heat and because he had swelling in his feet. Finally, he stated he had a poor memory and lost his temper two or three times per week at which times he would curse a great dеal.
Kelley‘s history of medical treatment contained many instances of missed or canceled appointments and repeated failures to take prescribed medicines. He sought treatment for a rash in August of 2000, received treatment, and in October 2000, showed improvement. He sought treatment for a right ganglion cyst in 2002 and declined the suggested treatment, stating that the cyst really did not bоther him too much at the time. In addition, he failed to fill certain skin treatment prescriptions.
He sought psychiatric treatment in January 2001, was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder secondary to his general medical condition, and received a course of treatment that continued through May 2002. His psychiatrist noted numerous canceled appointments, a general improvement in Kelley‘s condition when he took
A consulting physician examined Kelley in April 2002 and found Kelley‘s ability to perform work-related functions such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, handling objects, hearing, speaking, and traveling unlimited. Consulting psychiatrist, Dr. Scott Morrison, M.D., also examined Kelley in April 2002. Although Kelley argues that the ALJ failed to consider Dr. Morrison‘s opinion, the record belies Kеlley‘s claim. The ALJ stated in his findings:
[Dr.] Morrison . . . indicated that it was impossible for him to perform a very thorough examination of claimant because of his profound sleepiness, much of the time, claimant seemed not to be paying attention. Overall, Dr. Morrison noted that it was impossible for him to make a definitive diagnosis in claimant‘s case.
Kelley focuses on a different portion of Dr. Morrison‘s opinion. In particular, Kelley points to a Medical Source Statement that Dr. Morrison completed in which he checked answers to standard questions to indicate: (1) Kelley had moderate restrictions on his ability to understand, remember, and carry out short, simple instructions; (2) Kelley had marked restrictions on his ability to understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions; and (3) Kelley had mаrked restrictions on his ability to interact appropriately with the public, supervisors, co-workers, and work pressures in a usual work setting.
II.
We review de novo the district court‘s decision to uphоld the denial of social security benefits. Pettit v. Apfel, 218 F.3d 901, 902 (8th Cir. 2000). Our review of the Commissioner‘s decision, however, is deferential, and we do not substitute our
In evaluating claims for disability, we conduct a five step sequential evaluation: (1) is the claimant engаging in substantial gainful activity; (2) does the claimant have severe impairment(s); (3) does the impairment or combination of impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1, Subpart P,
The absence of supporting medical evidence is relevant to the consideration of a claimant‘s subjective medical complaints. See Wilson v. Chater, 76 F.3d 238, 241 (8th Cir. 1996);
Here, more than substantial evidence supports the Commissioner‘s decision. The infrequency of Kelley‘s attempts to treat his condition and his failure to follow his prescribed treatments were actions inconsistent with the severity of his complaints. Kelley left work for reasons unrelated to his medical conditions. Kelley‘s own description of his work limitations were out of proportion with those described by the consulting physician and out of proportion with any evidence provided by the records of treating physicians. In light of these inconsistencies, it was permissible for the Commissioner to discount Kelley‘s subjective complaints. Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir.1984). Having discounted these complaints, the medical records, the conclusions of the consulting physicians, and Kellеy‘s work history provided substantial evidence to support a finding of no severe impairment(s).
Although the responses that Dr. Morrison provided on the Medical Source Statement indicated somе marked limitations, Dr. Morrison questioned the validity of his own opinion due to Kelley‘s non-responsiveness during examination. Accordingly, it was permissible for the Commissioner to conclude that Dr.
We affirm the judgment of the district court.