Ruby Henderson appeals from the District Court’s 1 оrder affirming the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. We affirm.
Ms. Henderson applied for disability bеnefits on February 2, 1987. Her application was denied, and she requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (AU). Thе AU found Ms. Henderson did not suffer from a severe impairment and denied her claim. The Appeals Council affirmed the AU’s decision, but the District Court remanded for further consideration of Ms. Henderson’s subjective complaints of pain. The AU then held а second evidentiary hearing.
The claimant’s testimony at the two hear-^ ings revealed that she injured her back while working as a nurse’s aide on September 5, 1986. The injury caused pain in her lower back, legs, neck, and head, and numbness on her right side. Shе testified that because of the injury, she could not walk or stand for extended periods, or bend and lift heavy objects. Ms. Henderson also testified that she suffered from constant depression. She took prescription medication for her physical pain and her nerves. Claimant also presented testimony from four lay witnesses, who generally corroborated her statements regarding her limited physical activities.
The medical evidence established that Ms. Henderson strained her lower back at work. Her treating physicians, however, found no physical disability and were unable to explain why her back pain persisted. Concerning her psychological condition, Darryl Johnson, M.S., a psychological еxaminer at the South Arkansas Regional Health Center, diagnosed Ms. Henderson with “dysthymic disorder.” 2 Johnson had treated her on numеrous occasions since 1978. He noted that her condition improved substantially when she took her medication, encouraged her to increase her activities, and determined no additional treatment was necessary. Ms. Hendersоn returned to the Center on two subsequent occasions and obtained additional medication.
The AU found that the claimant did not have a severe impairment, because her problems did not significantly limit her ability to perform basic work-related activities. After considering the factors set forth in
Polaski v. Heckler,
On appeal, Ms. Henderson argues that the AU’s finding that she did not suffer from a severe impairment is not supported by substantial evidence; therefore, the AU erred by terminating the five-step sequential evaluation process аt step two. Our standard of review is clear. “We must uphold the ... denial of benefits if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.”
Burns v. Sullivan,
*21
The record reveals substantial support for the ALJ’s findings. The medical evidence established that Ms. Henderson had no significant physical disability. Similarly, Ms. Henderson’s psychological examiner, Darryl Johnson, reported that she did not suffer from a disabling mental illness. After carefully considering the factors set forth in
Polaski,
the AU rejected Ms. Henderson’s subjеctive complaints of pain because they were inconsistent with the other evidence. See
Burns,
The claimant contends that Dr. Harrendorf’s opinion supports a finding of severe psychological impairment. We disagree. “[T]he report of a consulting physiсian who examined the claimant once does not constitute ‘substantial evidence’ upon the record as a whole, especially when contradicted by the claimant’s treating physician.” See
Lanning v. Heckler,
Finally, Ms. Henderson argues that the AU improperly terminated the sequential evaluation process at step two bеcause he used the wrong standard to evaluate the severity of her impairments. The AU concluded that the claimаnt’s impairments did not “significantly limit her' ability to perform basic work-related activities.” Ms. Henderson correctly points out thаt the process may be terminated at step two only when an impairment or combination of impairments would havе “no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.”
Hudson v. Bowen,
Accordingly, we affirm.
Notes
. The Honorable Oren Harris, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastеrn and Western Districts of Arkansas.
. The "essential feature" of dysthymia "is a chronic disturbance of mood involving depressed mоod.” Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 230 (3d ed. rev. 1987) (DSM-III-R). The impairment of social and occupational functioning as a result of the disorder is usually mild or moderate. Id. at 231.
.The new evidence was a letter from Dr. Cagle Harrendorf, a specialist in psychosomatic medicinе, which stated Henderson suffered from “conversion of affect syndrome." This is a loss of physical functioning that suggests a physiсal disorder but is actually an expression of psychological conflict. DSM-III-R at 393. Harren-dorf thought that Henderson would benefit most from inpatient psychological treatment.