*1 Bеfore McMILLIAN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and WEBBER, District Judge. [1]
___________
MAGILL, Circuit Judge.
Joanne M. Long appeals the decision of the Social Security Commissioner (Commissioner) denying her Social Security benefits. Long arguеs that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence because (1) the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by rejecting Long’s subjective complaints and (2) the Commissioner has not met her burden of proof to show that Long can perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. We affirm.
I.
Long was born on October 7, 1950. She has a high schoоl equivalency degree and one year of college education. She was a drafting major at a community college and she has been on the Dean's list at leаst twice. In the past, Long has worked as a waste treatment plant attendant, fast-food worker, punch press operator, and printer. She has a verbal IQ of 91, a performance IQ of 117, and a full scale IQ of 96. Long is five feet and two inches tall, and she weighs approximately 200 pounds.
Long filed her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits, pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433 (1988) (Title II), on September 28, 1990. She alleged that she has been unable to work since May 1, 1986, because of deprеssion and anxiety, headaches, neck pain, and back pain. The Commissioner denied her application.
Long appealed the Commissioner's decision to thе district court, [2] which remanded Long's case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. After a supplemental hearing before an ALJ, Long's request for benefits wаs again denied because, discounting Long's subjective complaints, the ALJ found that Long could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. In making this finding, the ALJ relied on the testimony of a vocational expert. The vocational expert testified that Long could work as a surveillance monitor, addresser, or document prepаrer, and that there are approximately 650 such jobs in Iowa and 30,000 such jobs nationwide. On appeal, the district court affirmed the ALJ's decision to deny disability benefits.
II.
We will uphold the Commissioner's decision to deny an applicant
disability benefits if the decision is not based on legal error and if
there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the
conclusion that the claimant was not disabled. See Clark v. Chater, 75
F.3d 414, 416 (8th Cir. 1996); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (1994).
Substantial evidence exists if a reasonable mind would deem the evidencе
adequate to support the conclusion. Clark,
To be eligible for disability insurance benefits undеr Title II, an
individual must meet Title II's "earning requirement." 42 U.S.C.
§§ 416(i)(3)(B), 423(c)(1)(B). Long last met this requirement on December
31, 1991. When an individual is no longer insured for Title II disability
purposes, we will only consider an individual's medicаl condition as of the
date she was last insured. See, e.g., Bastian v. Schweiker,
A.
Long argues that the ALJ improperly discounted her subjective
complaints of disabling difficulties in reading and writing, disabling
depression and anxiety, and disabling headaches, neck pain, and back pain.
In Polaski v. Heckler,
The adjudicator must give full consideration to all of the evidence presented relating to subjective complaints, including the claimant's prior work record, and observations by third parties and treating and examining
physicians relating to such matters as:
1. the claimant's daily activities;
2. the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain;
3. precipitating and aggravating factors; 4. dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication;
5. funсtional restrictions. Id. at 948. Using the Polaski factors, the ALJ delineated at length the reasons why Long's subjective complaints had to be rejected. We agree with the ALJ's conclusiоn.
Long's complaints of disabling difficulties in reading and writing are contradicted by her academic accomplishments and the daily activities that led to their achievement. Although testing has indicated that Long reads at a ninth-grade level, she has attained her high school equivalency degree and is currently enrolled as a drafting major at a community college. While she sometimes takes as few as three credits per semester, she has taken as many as eight. Despite her frequent reliance on special serviсes such as extra tutoring and having her books read onto tape, Long has made the Dean's list at her community college on at least two occasions.
With respeсt to Long's mental health complaints, she has been seen at the Vera French Community Mental Health Center (MHC) since July 1986. Her use of the therapy services provided by this facility has varied from sporadic to consistent. The MHC psychiatrist who monitored Long's progress starting in October 1988, Dr. Alice J. Harpring, indicated in her reports that Long has suffered from some mеntal health setbacks. However, Long herself has reported that taking the medication prozac has helped her. Finally, Dr. Harpring's assessments reflect that overall Lоng has done well under treatment.
Long has only infrequently sought treatment for her physical health
complaints. For example, she has sought the help of a chiropractor on
occasion and she has taken nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory medication on
an as-needed basis. She has testified to taking this medication very
infrequently and could not be sure of the last time that she had taken it.
We have noted that an individual's complaints of "functional limitations
are inconsistent with her failure to take prescription pаin medication or
to seek regular medical treatment for her symptoms." Ostronski v. Chater,
Having considered these facts as well as the record as a whole, we hold that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision to reject Long's subjective complaints. We acknowledge that some evidence exists for the opposite conclusion; however, we hold that substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ's conclusion in the form of academic achievements, improving mental health assessments, and infrequent use of pain medication.
B.
Long argues that the Commissioner did not show that there are other jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy that Long can perform. We disagree.
The Commissioner can rely on the testimony of a vocational expert to
carry her burden of proof of showing that jobs exist in the national
economy that a claimant can perform. See Evans v. Shalala,
To decide whether jobs exist in significant numbers, we
*6
consider, inter alia, the reliability of the claimant's and the vocational
expert's testimony. Ultimately, however, we leave this determination "'to
the trial judge's common sense in weighing the statutory languаge as
applied to a particular claimant's factual situation.'" Jenkins v. Bowen,
Long argues that the vocational expert's testimony was insufficient because he used phrases that were equivocаl. For example, at one point the vocational expert said that there were "probably . . . about 400 statewide [jobs]" for administrative support personnel and thаt "I think you'd be looking at the possibility of someone doing surveillance monitor work." Admin. R. at 387, reprinted in Appellant's Br. at 31. Having reviewed the vocational expert's testimony in its entirety, we are convinced that this language does not indicate that the expert was hedging or giving qualified responses. Taken in context, these phrases merely demonstratе that the vocational expert was aware that he was responding to hypothetical questions with expert opinions. Thus, by relying on the vocational expert's testimоny, the Commissioner met her burden of showing that Long is not disabled.
III.
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Notes
[1] THE HONORABLE E. RICHARD WEBBER, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
[2] The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.