Bradley v. Astrue
Decision Date | 20 June 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 07-2440.,07-2440. |
Citation | 528 F.3d 1113 |
Parties | Hubert BRADLEY,<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James H. Green, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Sean N. Stewart, Spec. Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (John F. Wood, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee; Kristi A. Schmidt, Acting Chief Counsel, Region VII, Social Sec. Admin., Kansas City, MO, of counsel.
Before RILEY, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Hubert Bradley (Bradley) appeals the district court's2 order affirming the denial of supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, et seq. (Act). After a hearing on January 28, 2005, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found Bradley was not disabled as defined by the Act and, thus, not entitled to Social Security benefits. The appeals council denied review. The district court affirmed, and we agree.
We review de novo the district court's decision affirming the ALJ's denial of benefits. See Travis v. Astrue, 477 F.3d 1037, 1040 (8th Cir.2007). In conducting this review, we consider whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Id. "Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind would find adequate to support the ALJ's conclusion." Nicola v. Astrue, 480 F.3d 885, 886 (8th Cir.2007) (citation omitted). We will not disturb the denial of benefits so long as the ALJ's decision falls within the "available zone of choice." Id. (quoting Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 936 (8th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted)). "An ALJ's decision is not outside the `zone of choice' simply because we might have reached a different conclusion had we been the initial finder of fact." Id.
The ALJ's determination Bradley was not disabled under the Act is supported by substantial evidence. Bradley suffers from HIV and no doubt faces significant obstacles in both his work and personal life. The ALJ relied upon the expert medical testimony of Dr. Selbert Chernoff (Dr. Chernoff). Dr. Chernoff recognized a combination of HIV-related and unrelated factors, including Bradley's depression, symptoms of diarrhea, fatigue and chronic shoulder disease causing difficulty in overhead (and far) reaching, "would limit [Bradley's] ability to work . . . ." (emphasis added). Yet, the expert opined Bradley's limitations did not qualify him as having an impairment under Social Security regulations. The ALJ also relied upon testimony from a vocational expert who answered a hypothetical limiting Bradley's physical and mental abilities consistent with the medical expert's testimony, and opined Bradley would be able to work in a number of light or sedentary jobs available in the national economy.
The ALJ's adverse credibility finding against Bradley is also supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ articulated factors supporting the adverse finding, including (1) many of Bradley's complaints were inconsistent with, or not supported by, the medical findings and treatment; (2) Bradley's discharge from therapy after failing to attend recommended appointments; (3) Bradley's sporadic work history; and (4) the lack of any additional evidence corroborating Bradley's subjective complaints. The record supports these findings; for example, Bradley was discharged from therapy after failing to show up for appointments, and Bradley had no reported earnings in seven separate years since 1987. Our case law permits the ALJ's reasonable inferences. See Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 802 (8th Cir.2005) ; see also Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1218 (8th Cir.2001) . "The credibility of a claimant's subjective testimony is primarily for the ALJ to decide, not the courts." Id. at 1218 (citation omitted).
Finally, the ALJ did not err in discounting more favorable testimony from two physicians, Dr. James True (Dr. True) and Dr. David Dembinski.3 The ALJ noted both doctors' opinions were conclusory and inconsistent with medical evidence in the record. Our review confirms these findings and shows us the doctors' statements regarding the extent of Bradley's impairments were at times even inconsistent with their own examinations. Compare: Dr. True concluding Bradley was "incapable of gainful employment based on his depression alone" with Dr. True assessing Bradley as only "mildly depressed."4 Doctor opinions on a patient's employment capability, e.g., Bradley was "incapable of gainful employment," are often not entitled to significant weight. See Flynn v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alia D. v. Kijakazi
...of whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bradley v. Astrue, 528 F.3d 1113, 1115 (8th Cir. 2008); Tellez v. Barnhart, 403 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2005); Buckner v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 1006, 1012 (8th Cir. 2000) (“We may reverse an......
-
Lynch v. Astrue
...support the ALJ's decision. (Id., p. 10) An ALJ is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the record evidence. Bradley v. Astrue, 528 F.3d 1113, 1115 (8th Cir. 2008). As discussed above, an ALJ must consider a number of factors in arriving at his credibility determination, but ultimat......
-
Garrett v. Colvin
...denial of benefits so long as the ALJ's decision falls within the available 'zone of choice.'" Id. at 556 (quoting Bradley v. Astrue, 528 F.3d 1113, 1115 (8th Cir. 2008)). "'An ALJ's decision is not outside that zone of choice simply because [a court] might have reached a different conclusi......
-
Sangel v. Astrue
...R. 33, 547. Accordingly, Sangel's failure to follow recommended treatment also weighs against her credibility. See Bradley v. Astrue, 528 F.3d 1113, 1115 (8th Cir.2008) (failure to follow recommended course of treatment weighs against claimant's credibility). In addition, Sangel's medicatio......
-
Table of Cases
...1210.8 Bradford v. Secretary of Department of Health and Human Servs. , 803 F.2d 871, 874 (6th Cir. 1986), § 1210.5 Bradley v. Astrue , 528 F.3d 1113 (8th Cir. June 20, 2008), 8th-10, 8th-08 Bradley v. Bowen , 660 F. Supp. 276, 279 (W.D. Ark. 1987), §§ 316.4, 607.1 Bradley v. Bowen , 809 F.......
-
Case index
..., 516 F.3d 539 (7 th Cir. Feb. 8, 2008), 7 th -08 Brace v. Astrue , 578 F.3d 882 (8 th Cir. Aug. 27, 2009), 8 th -09 Bradley v. Astrue , 528 F.3d 1113 (8 th Cir. June 20, 2008), 8 th -08 Brown v. Apfel , 192 F.3d 492 (5 th Cir. Oct. 7, 1999), 5 th -99 Brown v. Astrue , 611 F.3d 941 (8 th Ci......
-
Table of cases
...1210.8 Bradford v. Secretary of Department of Health and Human Servs. , 803 F.2d 871, 874 (6th Cir. 1986), § 1210.5 Bradley v. Astrue , 528 F.3d 1113 (8th Cir. June 20, 2008), 8th-10, 8th-08 Bradley v. Bowen , 660 F. Supp. 276, 279 (W.D. Ark. 1987), §§ 316.4, 607.1 Bradley v. Bowen , 809 F.......
-
Case Index
..., 761 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. July 31, 2014), 8th-14 Brace v. Astrue , 578 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 2009), 8th-09 Bradley v. Astrue , 528 F.3d 1113 (8th Cir. June 20, 2008), 8th-08 Brown v. Apfel , 192 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. Oct. 7, 1999), 5th-99 Brown v. Astrue , 611 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. July 26, ......