Dixon v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 17 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2800,89-2800 |
| Citation | 905 F.2d 237 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 15508A Thomas E. DIXON, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Thomas E. Dixon, pro se.
Joseph B. Moore, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Thomas E. Dixon appeals pro se from the District Court's 1 order affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying Dixon's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. Dixon argues that the Administrative Law Judge's determination that he could return to his past relevant work was not supported by substantial evidence, and that not "all information supplied to the case was admitted" into the record. Brief for Appellant 3. Dixon also states that his disability began in February 1986, not March 4, 1985, as reflected in his August 18, 1986 application. We affirm.
Judicial review of disability determinations is limited to assessing whether there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Secretary's decision. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g); Bogard v. Heckler, 763 F.2d 361, 362-63 (8th Cir.1985). A claimant bears the burden of showing that his impairments prevented him from performing his past relevant work. Turpin v. Bowen, 813 F.2d 165, 170 (8th Cir.1987).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record. Dixon worked with his impairments over a period of years without any worsening of his condition. Thus, he cannot claim them as disabling. See Easttam v. Secretary of HEW, 364 F.2d 509, 513 (8th Cir.1966). His headaches are controlled by medication; there is no evidence to support his claims of disabling jaw misalignment; and by Dixon's own admission his right knee has not presented a serious problem since February 1986. Finally, Dixon's subjective complaints of lower back pain were properly discounted by the ALJ because they were not corroborated by the medical evidence, and because Dixon's testimony was contradictory and inconsistent both within itself and with his earlier statements to the Secretary. See Benskin v. Bowen, 830 F.2d 878 (8th Cir.1987).
ALJs must seriously consider a claimant's testimony about pain, even when it is wholly subjective. But questions of credibility are for the trier of fact in the first instance. If an ALJ explicitly discredits a claimant's testimony and gives a good reason for doing so, we will normally defer to that judgment. There...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steele v. Astrue
...condition detracts from a claimant's credibility. Roberts v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Dixon v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 237, 238 (8th Cir. 1990)); Comstock v. Chater, 91 F.3d 1143, 1146-46 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Benskin, 830 F.2d at 884); Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322. Additi......
-
White v. Colvin
...without a showing that there has been a significant deterioration in that impairment during the relevant period. See Dixon v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 237, 238 (8th Cir. 1990). See also Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825, 830 (8th Cir. 2008) ("[D]espite suffering from what she calls "extreme fati......
-
Buckman v. Astrue, Case No. 2:11CV56MLM
...without a showing that there has been a significant deterioration in that impairment during the relevant period. See Dixon v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 237, 238 (8th Cir. 1990). See also Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825, 830 (8th Cir. 2008) ("[D]espite suffering from what she calls "extreme fati......
-
Kovach v. Apfel, 2:99CV0052 (MLM).
...that she is disabled. Where a claimant can work with an impairment, the impairment cannot be considered disabling. Dixon v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 237, 238 (8th Cir.1990). Sixth, the fact that Plaintiff failed to report that she was working at a job to the Social Security Administration detract......
-
Case survey
...for doing so, we will normally defer to that judgment.’” Hogan v. Apfel , 239 F.3d 958, 962 (8th Cir. 2001), quoting Dixon v. Sullivan , 905 F.2d 237, 238 (8th Cir. 1990). In Hogan , the Eighth Circuit’s review of the record satisfied that the ALJ set forth “more than a sufficiently ‘good r......
-
Table of Cases
...203.11, 204.2,1105.1, 1603.5 Dixon v. Shalala , 54 F.3d 1019, 1022, 1030 (2d Cir. 1995), §§ 103.1, 104.2, 206.1, 1103 Dixon v. Sullivan , 905 F.2d 237, 238 (8th Cir. 1990),§§ 204.2, 312.8 Dix v. Sullivan , 900 F.2d 135, 136 (8th Cir. 1990), § 305.1 Doak v. Heckler , 790 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir.......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...for doing so, we will normally defer to that judgment.’” Hogan v. Apfel , 239 F.3d 958, 962 (8 th Cir. 2001), quoting Dixon v. Sullivan , 905 F.2d 237, 238 (8 th Cir. 1990). In Hogan , the Eighth Circuit’s review of the record satisfied that the ALJ set forth “more than a sufficiently ‘good......
-
Specific impairments issues
...or of deterioration or change in her mental capabilities, factors which disfavor a disability finding.” Id. , citing Dixon v. Sullivan , 905 F.2d 237, 238 (8 th Cir. 1990). (5) In Wiekamp , the court held that the ALJ did not provide a sufficient basis for rejecting the treating physician’s......