Teena Draper, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee.
No. 05-1483
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Submitted: September 21, 2005; Filed: October 13, 2005
Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
Appeal From the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
Teena Draper appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas affirming the decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ), on behalf of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner). The ALJ found that Draper was not entitled to a period of disability insurance benefits nor eligible for Supplemental Security Income under the
Teena Draper is a 34-year-old single woman. She is a high school graduate and has an Associate degree from a technical college. She served in the United States Army Reserves from May 1984 to May 1990. After graduating from college, she worked at the International Paper Company from 1987 to 1996, and the Pine Bluff Cutting Tool Company from March 1996 to October 1996. She was self-employed from December 1996 to December 1997. In February 1998, she commenced working for the DUB Clenney Construction Company. On April 6, 1999, she suffered an injury at work that resulted in a herniated disk and two bulging disks. Draper received therapy and other treatment for her back injuries over a period of time. All treating physicians agreed that she was anxious to return to work and that there was no evidence of malingering on her part.
In 2000, Draper took a job with the Malvern Country Club as a cashier, earning $14,000 a year. In 2001, Draper was hired by Carolyn Overton Electric, Inc. (Overton). She testified that one day a supervisor of that company came into the Country Club and offered her a job, knowing she had a bad back. Draper worked at Overton for a little over a year, but it is not at all clear from the record precisely what work she did while employed at Overton. It appears that she initially fed boards into a paint line, and was later moved to another position, supervising employees painting boards, watching production reports, and keeping an eye on the machines. Draper eventually left Overton, due to extreme pain in her lower back, her hips, and her thighs. She testified: “Well, I didn‘t quit. I just wasn‘t able to go out there and work. And he didn‘t have anything I could do.” (Admin. Agency R. at 164.)
On September 20, 2002, Draper filed an application for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments. The claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration. The ALJ found that Draper has degenerative disk disease of the lumbosacral spine, a severe impairment, but not one severe enough to meet or
Discussion
In reviewing the Commissioner‘s ruling, our task is to determine if her denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence. Brosnahan v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 671, 675-76 (8th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence has been described as “less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner‘s decision.” Id. at 675. Such a determination requires us not only to consider evidence in the record that supports the Commissioner‘s determination, but also any evidence that detracts from that conclusion. Hutsell v. Massanari, 259 F.3d 707, 711 (8th Cir. 2001). While a “deficiency in opinion-writing is not a sufficient reason to set aside an ALJ‘s finding where the deficiency [has] no practical effect on the outcome of the case,” inaccuracies, incomplete analyses, and unresolved conflicts of evidence can serve as a basis for remand. Reeder v. Apfel, 214 F.3d 984, 988 (8th Cir. 2000); Boyd v. Sullivan, 960 F.2d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 1992).
We are troubled by a material inconsistency in the ALJ‘s findings and conclusions, which necessitates a remand. The ALJ found that Draper was unable to perform any of her past work. This past work included work as a cashier, a supervisor, and other work at Overton. Draper‘s work as a cashier is properly classified as light work, as was some of the work she performed at Overton, mainly supervising a paint line. See generally § 211, Cashiers and Tellers, Dictionary of Occupational Titles, (4th ed.); and § 840.131-010, -014, Painting Supervisor.
The ALJ further found that Draper‘s allegations of disabling pain were “inconsistent with her reports with regard to her normal daily activities and are therefore not considered credible.” (Admin. Agency R. at 21.) Substantial evidence on the record as a whole does not support this conclusion. Draper testified that after she was injured, she went back to work at the Malvern Country Club as a cashier and then as an employee at Overton. She further testified that she had to leave the job at Overton because the pain was so bad in her lower back, left hip, and thighs that she could not take it. She stated she is no longer able to work. She walks around and tries, with the help of her brother and mother, to keep her home clean, but takes care not to exert herself. She does not want to sit all the time, because sitting for prolonged periods makes her pain worse. She can sit for twenty minutes without being in pain, drive a car, and stand without difficulty for ten or fifteen minutes. She
The ALJ discounted the above evidence because Draper‘s activities of daily living involved some light exertional activities, such as household chores, laundry, grocery shopping, mowing, and other chores.3 The fact that Draper tries to maintain her home and does her best to engage in ordinary life activities is not inconsistent with her complaints of pain, and in no way directs a finding that she is able to engage in light work. As we said in McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1147 (8th Cir. 1982) (en banc), the test is whether the claimant has “the ability to perform the requisite physical acts day in and day out, in the sometimes competitive and stressful conditions in which real people work in the real world.” In other words, evidence of performing general housework does not preclude a finding of disability. In Rainey v. Dep‘t of Health & Human Servs., 48 F.3d 292, 203 (8th Cir. 1995), the claimant washed dishes, did light cooking, read, watched TV, visited with his mother, and drove to shop for groceries. We noted that these were activities that were not substantial evidence of the ability to do full-time, competitive work. In Baumgarten v. Chater, 75 F.3d 366, 369 (8th Cir. 1996), the ALJ pointed to the claimant‘s daily activities, which included making her bed, preparing food, performing light
that to find a claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a certain type of work, the claimant must have the ability to perform the requisite acts day in and day out, in the sometimes competitive and stressful conditions in which real people work in the real world. . . . The ability to do light housework with assistance, attend church, or visit with friends on the phone does not qualify as the ability to do substantial gainful activity.
Thomas v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 666, 669 (8th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted).
The ALJ‘s refusal to call a vocational expert compounded its error in failing to credit Draper‘s subjective complaints of pain. Our cases have often explained the rule with respect to the decision to call a vocational expert where there is a nonexertional impairment:
Generally, if the claimant suffers from nonexertional impairments that limit her ability to perform the full range of work described in one of the specific categories set forth in the guidelines, the ALJ is required to utilize testimony of a vocational expert. Groeper v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1234, 1235 n.1 (8th Cir. 1991). . . . The exception to this general rule is that the ALJ may exclusively rely on the guidelines even though there are nonexertional impairments if the ALJ finds, and the record supports the finding, that the nonexertional impairments do not significantly diminish the claimant‘s RFC [residual functional capacity] to perform the full range of activities listed in the guidelines.
Conclusion
In summary, we reverse the decision of the district court with directions to remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The here noted inconsistencies in the record should be clarified, and the nature of the duties Draper performed at Overton should be fully explored. Moreover, a vocational expert should be called by the ALJ to assist in the determination of whether, despite Draper‘s exertional and nonexertional limitations, she has “the ability to perform the requisite physical acts day in and day out, in the sometimes competitive and stressful conditions in which real people work in the real world.” McCoy, 683 F.2d at 1147.