Kirby v. Astrue

Decision Date11 September 2007
Docket NumberNo. 06-3998.,06-3998.
Citation500 F.3d 705
PartiesRoy H. KIRBY, Appellee, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Eric J. Feigin, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, argued (Peter D. Keisler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas M. Bondy, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, Bradley J. Schlozman, U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.

Timothy C. Harlan, Harlan, Harlan & Still, Columbia, MO, argued, for appellee.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Roy Kirby applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423, 1382. An administrative law judge ("ALJ") of the Social Security Administration denied his application, concluding that he does not suffer from a severe impairment. The district court reversed and remanded for entry of an award of benefits, and the Commissioner of Social Security now appeals. We reverse and remand for entry of judgment for the Commissioner.

I.

Kirby asserts that he is disabled because of hand tremors and psychiatric illness. In 2001, he had a hearing before an ALJ, who found that he was not disabled because his impairments were not severe. Kirby petitioned the Appeals Council for review and submitted a psychiatric evaluation by a consulting physician, Dr. Bruce Harry, as new evidence. The Appeals Council denied review, and Kirby sought judicial review. The district court reversed and remanded to the Commissioner, instructing him to develop and evaluate the record more fully and to give further consideration to Dr. Harry's report. The Commissioner did not appeal that decision, and it is not before us.

After the remand from the district court, a different ALJ conducted a second hearing. Kirby testified that he experienced tremors in both hands, and that the tremors were more severe on the right side. Kirby stated that his "hand keeps at a steady pace of shaking" that "never stops." (A.R.465). He also testified that he suffered from at least seven seizures per day, some of which caused him to lose control of his arms, and some of which caused his entire body to convulse.

Kirby also offered Dr. Harry's report to support his claims of psychiatric illness. Dr. Harry diagnosed Kirby with an "[e]ssential [t]remor," "[d]ysthymic disorder" (depression), and a "[c]ognitive [d]isorder not otherwise specified." (Id. at 422). He stated that Kirby performed poorly on memory tests and the Global Assessment of Functioning. Dr. Harry concluded that given his psychiatric problems, Kirby was "unable to do even simple, repetitive tasks under the stresses inherent to a competitive environment." (Id. at 423). He opined that Kirby "might be able to do some simple, repetitive activities in a very low-stress, sheltered setting," but that such activity "would likely aggravate his already low self-esteem." (Id.).

The ALJ declined to accept Dr. Harry's opinion, and concluded that Kirby's case was "full of exaggerations by the claimant, and dubious medical diagnoses." (Id. at 283). He found that Kirby suffered from a "mild right upper extremity tremor," but that Kirby's physical impairments were controlled by medication, and were not severe enough to prevent him from maintaining a normal work schedule. (Id. at 284, 286). The ALJ also found that Kirby's psychiatric problems, including "possible mild dysth[y]mia," did not significantly limit his ability "to think, understand, communicate, concentrate, get along with other people, and handle normal work stress." (Id. at 285-86). The ALJ found that Kirby had only "slight abnormalities" that did not "significantly limit[] the performance of any basic work activities." (Id. at 283). In terms of "mental functioning," the ALJ applied 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a, which describes a "special technique" for evaluating claims of mental impairment, and determined that Kirby had "no more than a minimal limitation in his ability to do basic work activities." (Id. at 285). For these reasons, the ALJ found that Kirby's impairments were not severe, and that he was therefore not disabled.

After the Appeals Council denied review, Kirby sought review in the district court. The court concluded that the ALJ gave insufficient weight to Dr. Harry's report and to Kirby's testimony about his limitations. The court reversed and remanded for entry of an award of benefits, and the Commissioner appeals that decision.

We review the district court's decision de novo. Leckenby v. Astrue, 487 F.3d 626, 632 (8th Cir.2007). We will uphold the Commissioner's denial of benefits, and thus reverse the district court in this case, if the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Simmons v. Massanari, 264 F.3d 751, 755 (8th Cir.2001). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support a decision. Id.

II.

The Commissioner uses a five-step evaluation to determine if a claimant is disabled. Id. at 754; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). Step two of the evaluation states that a claimant is not disabled if his impairments are not "severe." Simmons, 264 F.3d at 754; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). An impairment is not severe if it amounts only to a slight abnormality that would not significantly limit the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 153, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987); id. at 158, 107 S.Ct. 2287 (O'Connor, J., concurring); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a). If the impairment would have no more than a minimal effect on the claimant's ability to work, then it does not satisfy the requirement of step two. Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2007). It is the claimant's burden to establish that his impairment or combination of impairments are severe. Mittlestedt v Apfel, 204 F.3d 847, 852 (8th Cir.2000). Severity is not an onerous requirement for the claimant to meet, see Hudson v. Bowen, 870 F.2d 1392, 1395 (8th Cir.1989), but it is also not a toothless standard, and we have upheld on numerous occasions the Commissioner's finding that a claimant failed to make this showing. See, e.g., Page, 484 F.3d at 1043-44; Dixon v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir.2003); Simmons, 264 F.3d at 755; Gwathney v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir.1997); Nguyen v. Chater, 75 F.3d 429, 431 (8th Cir.1996).

We conclude that ample evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that Kirby's hand tremors were not severe. There was substantial evidence that Kirby exaggerated or invented his physical ailments, and that any genuine impairments were slight. Kirby underwent several rounds of diagnostic testing to determine the cause of the tremors, all of which produced normal results. Dr. Ravinder Arora, a consulting physician, submitted a report stating that the tremor "seem[ed] to disappear . . . when the patient was not paying any attention." (A.R.243). Several other doctors also contradicted Kirby's claim that the tremors "never stop[ped]," and noted that the tremors were absent or diminished when Kirby was distracted or when a doctor first entered the room. (Id. at 168, 241, 307). Based on his examination and the medical records, Dr. Arora concluded that the "tremors are intentional and are willful." (Id. at 248).

The ALJ had additional reasons to doubt Kirby's credibility about his physical impairments. Kirby testified that he had at least seven seizures a day, and that these either left him without control of his arms, or caused his entire body to convulse. The ALJ noted that "[n]o one has ever actually witnessed one of these alleged seizures." (Id. at 284). Kirby reported that he experienced seizures when he was hospitalized in 2005, but no member of the hospital staff observed them, and tests indicated that none occurred. (Id. at 304, 366). The ALJ also found it "incredibl[e]" that Kirby experienced multiple daily seizures, presumably without warning, but that he still drove a car once a week, as he testified. (Id. at 284, 465).

Whatever Kirby's actual physical impairments, substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that they were not severe. Dr. Arora stated that Kirby's tremors were "[m]inimal," (id. at 243), which was consistent with the ALJ's observation that the tremors were not noticeable during the hearing. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147-48 (8th Cir.2001) ("The ALJ's personal observations of the claimant's demeanor during the hearing [are] completely proper in making credibility determinations."). Dr. Arora also opined that Kirby "has no difficulty with sitting, standing, carrying, lifting, or handling objects," and rated Kirby's range of movements as "normal." (A.R.243). This evidence was sufficient to show that Kirby's physical impairments did not significantly limit his ability to do basic work activities, such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, reaching, carrying, and so on. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b)(1).

Substantial evidence also supported the ALJ's finding that Kirby did not suffer a significant impairment because of his psychiatric illness. Kirby's claims of psychiatric...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1562 cases
  • Reinhardt v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 15 Diciembre 2015
    ...abnormality that would not significantly limit the claimant's physical or mental ability to dobasic work activities." Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a) (describing basic work activities). In other words, if the impairment has only a minimal......
  • Tobin v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 17 Enero 2012
  • Steele v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 5 Junio 2012
  • Flowers v. Colvin, Case No. 4:15CV177NCC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 18 Diciembre 2015
    ...Act's meaning. At Step 2, a claimant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that she has a severe impairment. See Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707-08 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Mittlestedt v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 847, 852 (8th Cir. 2000) (reversing district court and affirming Commissioner)). A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Case Index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • 4 Mayo 2015
    ...549 (8th Cir. July 19, 2011), 8th-11 Flaherty v. Astrue , 515 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir. Oct. 3, 2007), 10th-07 Case Index Kirby v. Astrue , 500 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. Sept. 11, 2007), 8th-07 Ukolov v. Barnhart , 420 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2005), 9th-05 §104. STEP 3: LISTED IMPAIRMENT § 104.1. ......
  • Case index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Preliminary Sections
    • 2 Agosto 2014
    ...646 F.3d 549 (8 th Cir. July 19, 2011), 8 th -11 Flaherty v. Astrue , 515 F.3d 1067 (10 th Cir. Oct. 3, 2007), 10 th -07 Kirby v. Astrue , 500 F.3d 705 (8 th Cir. Sept. 11, 2007), 8 th -07 Ukolov v. Barnhart , 420 F.3d 1002 (9 th Cir. Aug. 23, 2005), 9 th -05 SOCIAL SECURITY ISSUES ANNOTATE......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • 4 Mayo 2015
    ...1984), §§ 104.2, 202.2, 202.4, 202.9, 205.16, 1205 Kinsella v. Schweiker , 708 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir. 1983), § 203.1 Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. Sept. 11, 2007), 8th-10, 8th-07 Kirby v. Callahan , 975 F. Supp. 1290, 1292 (D. Kan. 1997), §§ 205.6, 205.7, 205.8, 205.9 Kirby v. ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • 3 Agosto 2014
    ...1984), §§ 104.2, 202.2, 202.4, 202.9, 205.16, 1205 Kinsella v. Schweiker , 708 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir. 1983), § 203.1 Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. Sept. 11, 2007), 8th-10, 8th-07 Kirby v. Callahan , 975 F. Supp. 1290, 1292 (D. Kan. 1997), §§ 205.6, 205.7, 205.8, 205.9 Kirby v. ......

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