Clark K. RETER, Petitioner, v. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent.
No. 05-4290.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 13, 2006. Filed: Oct. 23, 2006.
467 F.3d 896
After determining that Gonzales‘s subjective complaints of pain were not credible, the ALJ found that Gonzales retained the capacity to lift fifty pounds occasionally and to push, pull, and lift twenty pounds frequently. These conclusions coincide with the medical opinion expressed by Mauldin, a physical medicine specialist who treated Gonzales numerous times over the months immediately following Gonzales‘s initial complaints of back pain. The ALJ adopted an RFC that reflected Mauldin‘s, rather than Ball‘s, opinion of Gonzales‘s capabilities because, according to the ALJ, Ball‘s opinion appeared to be based solely on Gonzales‘s subjective complaints of back pain and it contradicted the medical evidence as a whole. The ALJ noted specifically that on June 24, 2003, Ball reported “that [Gonzales] had increased pain after washing his car, and yet signed a Medical Source Statement on the very next day in which he opined that [Gonzales] was virtually bedfast.” Decision of Sept. 30, 2004, at 4-5. The ALJ considered evidence of Gonzales‘s daily activities—including notes in medical charts that Gonzales was washing his car and playing ball—in discounting Ball‘s medical opinion that Gonzales was disabled. Moreover, the ALJ described additional evidence in the record contradicting Ball‘s assessment, namely, observations by Mauldin, Stone, the PT, and the OT that Gonzales appeared to be exaggerating his symptoms.
An ALJ may “discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating physician where other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence, or where a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions.” Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Considering the record as a whole, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ‘s decision to rely on Mauldin‘s assessment that Gonzales retained the RFC to perform his past relevant work as it is usually performed.
In sum, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ‘s conclusion that Gonzales is not disabled. Because we hold that the ALJ‘s decision denying benefits is supported by substantial evidence, we need not address the Commissioner‘s contention that the District Court should have remanded the case for further proceedings before the ALJ, rather than directly awarding benefits. Accordingly, we reverse the District Court‘s order and remand the case with instructions to reinstate the Commissioner‘s denial of benefits.
Thad James Murphy, Dubuque, IA, for Petitioner.
Stanley Jay Shuman, Michael S. Schwartz, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, Chicago, IL, for Respondent.
Before LOKEN and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and DOTY,1 District Judge.
Clark Reter filed a claim under the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) for disability annuity benefits based on his diminished hearing capacity and pain in his back, shoulders, legs, arms, and hands. See
Mr. Reter was employed by the railroad industry from 1977 until 1988, when he stopped working after injuring his back. A few years later, Mr. Reter obtained an associate‘s degree in commercial art. He then worked both as a graphic artist and as a web designer until 2001, when he stopped working because of alleged pain in his arms and hands. When Mr. Reter applied for a disability annuity under the RRA, his initial request was denied, as was his request for reconsideration. After holding an administrative hearing, a hearing officer sustained the denial of Mr. Reter‘s claim. Mr. Reter then appealed to the Railroad Retirement Board, and a majority of the Board “adopted” the hearing officer‘s decision, added a few additional comments, and denied the claim.
I.
If service requirements are met, the RRA provides an annuity to former railroad employees “whose permanent
To determine whether a claimant is entitled to disability annuity benefits, the Railroad Retirement Board, and the hearing officer on behalf of the Board, asks a series of questions derived from
II.
Mr. Reter maintains that the hearing officer erred at the second step of the inquiry by considering separately, rather than in combination, the effect of his hearing impairment and his other impairments on his ability to perform basic work activities. He maintains that this error carried over to step four, resulting in his being denied disability benefits.
At the second step, Mr. Reter had to show that he had a medically severe impairment, which is an impairment or combination of impairments that “significantly limit[ed] his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”
In this case, the hearing officer determined at step two that Mr. Reter had a severe hearing impairment. After discussing Mr. Reter‘s other alleged impairments in detail, however, the hearing officer concluded that Mr. Reter had not presented sufficient evidence to support those allegedly painful impairments. Neither the hearing officer nor the Board in its separate comments specifically considered Mr. Reter‘s hearing impairment “in combination” with his other alleged impairments during the evaluation process. But no error occurred unless Mr. Reter met his burden of showing that he had another medically determinable impairment. See Fountain, 88 F.3d at 533; cf. Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1183, 1187 (8th Cir. 1989).
Because Mr. Reter relied so heavily on his own subjective complaints, we believe that his credibility plays a particularly significant role in this case. Although the Board may not disregard a claimant‘s subjective complaints based solely on the lack of objective medical evidence, that is one of many relevant circumstances that may be taken into account. See Siemers v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 299, 301 (8th Cir. 1995) (relying on Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam order)); see also Fountain, 88 F.3d at 531. Here the credibility finding had additional support: As we have said, Mr. Reter was not being treated for his alleged pain and there was no evidence of previous treatment. He testified that he was able to do little around the house and that his wife and mother-in-law did tasks that his pain prevented him from doing. But he did not offer their testimony or any other third-party testimony about his daily activities, his limitation of movement, the “duration, frequency, and intensity of [his] pain,” or his “functional restrictions.” See Siemers, 47 F.3d at 301. In addition, the hearing officer noted that Dr. Stanley Rabinowitz, a consulting physician hired by the Board, examined Mr. Reter and found that he had no difficulty in ambulation or restrictions on his range of motion. In addition, the hearing officer referred to Dr. Rabinowitz‘s findings that Mr. Reter‘s straight leg raising, grip strength, digital dexterity, motor strength, and sensory examination was negative for limitations and the doctor‘s conclusion that Mr. Reter could do work at the medium, light, or sedentary levels of exertion. Dr. Rabinowitz also determined that Mr. Reter was not limited in his ability to perform manipulative functions.
Although Dr. John Debush, another consulting physician hired by the Board, concluded that Mr. Reter had some limitations not found by Dr. Rabinowitz, the hearing officer determined that the findings of Dr. Debush were based on Mr. Reter‘s subjective complaints, which were not credible. In any event, neither the hearing officer nor the Board was required to accept Dr. Debush‘s findings, which differed from those of another qualified physician. See Bowman v. Railroad Ret. Bd., 952 F.2d 207, 211 (8th Cir. 1991). We believe that the hearing officer‘s credibility finding was adequately supported, and that the evidence provides ample support for his conclusion that Mr. Reter‘s only medically determinable impairment was his hearing loss. We therefore reject Mr. Reter‘s contention that the Board was required to consider his hearing impairment “in combination” with other alleged impairments.
III.
Mr. Reter had the burden of showing that he had a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments that prevented him from working as a web designer or graphic artist. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n. 5 (1987).