Lorenzen v. Chater

• Decision Date: 08 December 1995
• Docket Number: No. 95-1499,95-1499
• Parties: , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 15023B Robert LORENZEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, * Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 316

71 F.3d 316

49 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 537, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 15023B

Robert LORENZEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security,

^*

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-1499.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 15, 1995.

Decided Dec. 8, 1995.

John August Bowman of Davenport, IA, argued (Michael DePree, on the brief), for appellant.

Christopher Hagen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Des Moines, IA, argued, for appellee.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

Robert Lorenzen appeals from the district court's ¹ grant of summary judgment, which affirmed the Social Security Administration's decision to deny his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We affirm.

In his applications, Lorenzen alleged a disability onset date of July 2, 1987, due to back trouble. The Social Security Administration denied his applications both initially and upon reconsideration. After a hearing held in 1992, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) also denied Lorenzen's applications for benefits. Subsequently, the appeals council of the Social Security Administration remanded the case to an ALJ for further proceedings.

On March 22, 1994, following a supplemental hearing, the ALJ rendered a decision denying benefits upon finding that Lorenzen was not disabled. The ALJ found that Lorenzen has severe lumbosacral stenosis with a history of two surgeries for the problem, the second of which showed a marked reduction of pain; a personality disorder; and a history of alcohol abuse. The ALJ concluded, however, that these impairments are not severe enough to meet or, in combination, to equal a listed impairment.

The ALJ discredited Lorenzen's testimony concerning the extent of his limitations, finding that Lorenzen took no medication for his alleged pain, that he has refused all but the briefest treatment for alcoholism, and that nothing in the record indicates that his inactivity is medically necessary. Medical records indicated that Lorenzen was doing well after his second lumbar surgery, and the only limitations specifically imposed upon him were to avoid heavy lifting and heavy activity for six weeks. While the residual functional capacity assessments made by two physicians indicated some severe pain and limitations, the ALJ discounted these assessments because they were made during a relapse which occurred before Lorenzen's second surgery. Similarly, although the ALJ did not specifically articulate this with regard to her testimony, the testimony of Lorenzen's past employer, Carol Bennett, concerning Lorenzen's pain and limitations was also based upon Lorenzen's condition prior to his second surgery.

The ALJ posed three hypothetical questions to a vocational expert (VE), asking the VE to determine the potential employment opportunities available to a person with Lorenzen's impairments, education, age, and capabilities and who could tolerate a stress level of either 3 or 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the greatest level of stress). The VE concluded that while such a person would be unable to return to past relevant work as a cook or maintenance engineer, the person would retain the residual functional capacity to engage in substantial gainful unskilled employment that exists both in the national economy and statewide. The VE listed some specific jobs as examples. Adding the consideration of two to three unscheduled absences per month to the hypothetical question, the VE concluded that this limitation alone would preclude all employment.

Based upon this record, the ALJ determined that Lorenzen was not under a disability at any time through the date of the decision and, accordingly, denied Lorenzen's applications for benefits. ² The appeals council denied Lorenzen's request for review of this decision.

Lorenzen sought judicial review. The district court determined that the decision of the Social Security Administration was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole....