Edwards v. Barnhart, 02-2744.

Decision Date03 January 2003
Docket NumberNo. 02-2744.,02-2744.
Citation314 F.3d 964
PartiesEDWARDS, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

E. Gregory Wallace, argued, Buies Creek, NC (Anthony Bartels, Jonesboro, AR, on the brief), for appellant.

Amy J. Mitchell, Social Security Counsel, argued, Dallas, TX, for appellee.

Before BOWMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Tywana Edwards, alleging injuries from a car crash, petitioned the Social Security Administration (SSA) for supplemental security income. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied her request, finding that Edwards's subjective complaints of pain were not credible and that her physician's opinion did not deserve controlling weight. The SSA Commissioner and the District Court1 agreed with the ALJ's decision. Finding substantial evidence to support that decision, we affirm.

The ALJ ultimately found that Edwards had the residual functional capacity to work in certain jobs, such as medical service clerk and receptionist, which involve light work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (2002). The ALJ's decision relied on three major premises. First, Edwards's subjective complaints of pain were not credible in large part because they were inconsistent with the medical evidence in the record and with her "wide range of normal daily activities." SSA Decision, Apr. 10, 2001, at 6. Second, her treating physician's opinion did not receive substantial weight because it was conclusory and inconsistent with her previous medical record. Third, Edwards failed to secure consistent medical care or medication.

We affirm the ALJ's decision if the record contains substantial evidence to support it. Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but enough so that a reasonable mind could find it adequate to support the decision. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir.2002). We examine evidence both supporting and detracting from the decision, and we cannot reverse the decision merely because there exists substantial evidence supporting a different outcome. Woolf v. Shalala, 3 F.3d 1210, 1213 (8th Cir.1993).

We begin our review with Edwards's subjective complaints of pain. The ALJ was required to consider all evidence related to: (1) Edwards's daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of her pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of her medication; and (5) functional restrictions. See Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 927, 107 S.Ct. 3211, 96 L.Ed.2d 698 (1987). Edwards's relevant work history and the absence of objective medical evidence should also be considered, see Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir.1998), although her subjective complaints cannot be disregarded solely because they are not supported by medical evidence, see Melton v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 939, 941 (8th Cir.1999). Subjective complaints can be discounted, however, where inconsistencies appear in the record as a whole. Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322. Our touchstone is that Edwards's credibility is primarily a matter for the ALJ to decide. See Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1218 (8th Cir.2001).

Edwards urges that her subjective complaints of pain are consistent with her medical records, but the ALJ found three instances where a physician's notes were not in harmony with Edwards's testimony. Such inconsistencies should be analyzed in a credibility determination. See, e.g., Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019, 1024 (8th Cir.2002). First, Edwards complained at the hearing of chest pain, but medical records show that the pain decreased one month after Edwards first reported it and that chest pain was not mentioned in a functional limitations report another month after that. Second, Edwards complained at the hearing of headaches, but the medical records contain few references to headache complaints; where the medical records do mention headache complaints, she was diagnosed with hypertension, and she responded well to the appropriate medication. Third, her complaints at the hearing of nausea and vomiting are not mentioned in any physician's reports. We find the ALJ properly considered these inconsistencies in evaluating the credibility of Edwards's testimony.

Next, Edwards argues that her daily activities are consistent with her subjective complaints of pain. Edwards can shop, drive short distances, attend church, and visit relatives, and, in her brief, she cites to cases in which we have held that claimants who perform similar daily activities are not by reason of those activities necessarily precluded from a finding of disability. See Cline v. Sullivan, 939 F.2d 560, 566 (8th Cir.1991); Rainey v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 48 F.3d 292, 293 (8th Cir.1995). In Rainey and in Cline, our concern was that the ALJ failed to explain the inconsistencies between the claimants' activities and their subjective complaints. Cline, 939 F.2d at 566; Rainey, 48 F.3d at 293. The ALJ in Edwards's hearing, however, provided an explanation: the activities that Edwards performed "necessitate[] the ability to do a number of tasks and suggest[] a greater physical and mental capacity than asserted." SSA Decision at 6. The ALJ further explained that "the greater daily activities revealed in the medical notes is [sic] generally consistent with the objective laboratory studies and objective clinical findings that establishes [sic] very minimal medical foundation for functional limitations." Id. Consistent with our precedents, we find substantial evidence to support the ALJ's findings with respect to Edwards's activities and alleged pain. See, e.g., Shannon v. Chater, 54 F.3d 484, 487 (8th Cir.1995) (findin...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1892 cases
  • Stephens v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • May 14, 2012
    ...to hepatic encephalopathy. Tr. 18. Seeking limited medical treatment is inconsistent with claims of disabling pain. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 967 (8th Cir. 2003); Rautio, 862 F. 2d at 179. Fourth, the ALJ considered that although Plaintiff testified that he was on a list for a live......
  • Tobin v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • January 17, 2012
    ...of disabling pain). Moreover, seeking limited medical treatment is inconsistent with claims of disabling pain. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 967 (8th Cir. 2003) ("The ALJ concluded, and we agree, that if her pain was as severe as she alleges, [Plaintiff] would have sought regular medic......
  • Denkins v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • January 31, 2012
    ...of disabling pain). Moreover, seeking limited medical treatment is inconsistent with claims of disabling pain. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 967 (8th Cir. 2003) ("[T]he ALJ concluded, and we agree, that if her pain was as severe as she alleges, [Plaintiff] would have sought regular med......
  • Rosa v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • April 28, 2010
    ...of her allegations. Tr. 21. Seeking limited medical treatment is inconsistent with claims of disabling pain. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 967 (8th Cir.2003) (“[T]he ALJ concluded, and we agree, that if her pain was as severe as she alleges, [Plaintiff] would have sought regular medica......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...1803.1 Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. June 14, 2001), 9th-08, 9th-01, §§ 103.1, 203.2, 1103, 1601.2 Edwards v. Barnhart , 314 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. Jan. 3, 2003), 8th-03 Edwards v. Barnhart , 383 F. Supp.2d 920 (E.D. Mich. 2005), 6th-09 Edwards v. Chater , Civ. A. No. 96-0009, 19......
  • Case Index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • May 4, 2015
    ..., 353 F.3d 602 (8th Cir. Dec. 22, 2003), 8th-03 Dolph v. Barnhart , 308 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. Oct. 21, 2002), 8th-02 Edwards v. Barnhart , 314 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. Jan. 3, 2003), 8th-03 Elder v. Astrue , 529 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. June 16, 2008), 7th-08 Ellis v. Barnhart , 392 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. Jan......
  • Case index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Preliminary Sections
    • August 2, 2014
    ...353 F.3d 602 (8 th Cir. Dec. 22, 2003), 8 th -03 Dolph v. Barnhart, 308 F.3d 876 (8 th Cir. Oct. 21, 2002), 8 th -02 Edwards v. Barnhart , 314 F.3d 964 (8 th Cir. Jan. 3, 2003), 8 th -03 Elder v. Astrue , 529 F.3d 408 (7 th Cir. June 16, 2008), 7 th -08 Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988 (8 th......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...1803.1 Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. June 14, 2001), 9th-08, 9th-01, §§ 103.1, 203.2, 1103, 1601.2 Edwards v. Barnhart , 314 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. Jan. 3, 2003), 8th-03 Edwards v. Barnhart , 383 F. Supp.2d 920 (E.D. Mich. 2005), 6th-09 Edwards v. Chater , Civ. A. No. 96-0009, 19......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT