Onstead v. Sullivan
Decision Date | 23 April 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 91-3401,91-3401 |
Citation | 962 F.2d 803 |
Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 16774A, 2 NDLR P 321 Joann ONSTEAD, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Anthony W. Bartels, Jonesboro, Ark., argued, for appellant.
Martin W. Long, Dallas, Tex., argued (Charles A. Banks, Gayla Fuller and Martin W. Long, on the brief) for appellee.
Before WOLLMAN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and LONGSTAFF, * District Judge.
Joann Onstead appeals from the district court's 1 order affirming the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability benefits. We affirm.
Onstead filed her current application for disability insurance benefits in 1985. She alleged disability from 1974 to September 30, 1979, the last date on which she was insured for disability benefits. She based her claim for benefits on residual health problems stemming from an ankle injury. At the time she filed her claim, Onstead was forty-one years old, with relevant work experience as an assembler and sander.
Onstead received an administrative hearing, her application was denied, and the denial of benefits was affirmed by the Appeals Council. Onstead then sought judicial review of the Secretary's final decision. The district court remanded the case for further administrative findings and an additional hearing, and the Secretary again denied disability benefits. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, affirming the denial of benefits. The court concluded that the Secretary's decision, which found that Onstead was not disabled prior September 30, 1979 and thus is not entitled to benefits for that time, is supported by substantial evidence.
The administrative law judge (ALJ) made the following factual determinations. Onstead has not engaged in any substantial gainful activity since 1974. Prior to September 30, 1979, Onstead had severe high blood pressure, arthritis, exogenous obesity, and problems stemming from past fractures of her right leg and ankle. The ALJ found Onstead's subjective complaints of severe pain and discomfort to be not credible.
Based on these findings, the ALJ determined that prior to September 30, 1979, Onstead did not suffer from an impairment or combination of impairments which equalled a listed disability, that Onstead retained the functional capacity to perform the full range of light work, and that Onstead was not disabled.
On appeal, Onstead contends that the Secretary's conclusion that she was not disabled prior to September 30, 1979 is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Onstead challenges both the ALJ's determination that she retained the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of light work and the ALJ's findings in regard to her subjective complaints.
We will uphold the Secretary's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). "Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the Secretary's conclusion," Whitehouse v. Sullivan, 949 F.2d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir.1991) (citation omitted), and "[w]e may not reverse 'merely because substantial evidence would have supported an opposite decision.' " Id. (quoting Baker v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir.1984)).
Onstead first challenges the ALJ's decision that prior to 1979 she retained the residual capacity to perform the full range of light work.
Onstead claims that she sustained a disabling ankle injury in 1972. She was seen by Dr. Floyd Smith in July and August of 1977, and complained to him that her ankle caused her pain in the mornings. Dr. Smith found that there was "no reason why [Onstead] could not be actively employed and consequently self-sustaining." Onstead sought no medical treatment whatsoever from 1980 through 1985.
In 1985, Onstead consulted Dr. Ramon Lopez. After one visit, Dr. Lopez concluded that prior to 1979 Onstead was unable to perform the type of factory work she had performed in 1974. He also concluded that Onstead was "at least partially disabled prior to 1979." In 1986, Onstead sought treatment from Dr. John Ashley. After one visit, Dr. Ashley concluded that Onstead had been disabled since 1972.
We note that a treating physician's opinion should be accorded substantial weight. Prince v. Bowen, 894 F.2d 283, 285 (8th Cir.1990). A consulting physician's opinion as to a patient he has seen only once, in contrast, " 'does not constitute 'substantial evidence' ..., especially when contradicted by the evaluation of the claimant's treating physician.' " Lanning v. Heckler, 777 F.2d 1316, 1318 (8th Cir.1985) (citation omitted).
Mindful of these directives, we conclude that the Secretary's decision is supported by substantial evidence. First, in 1977, Dr. Smith opined that there was no reason why Onstead could not be actively employed and self-sustaining. His opinion must be accorded substantial weight, as it was given during the relevant time period and as he was Onstead's treating physician. Prince, 894...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Englerth v. Colvin
...is a function of the ALJ, who is the fact-finder. See Benskin v. Bowen, 830 F.2d 878, 882 (8th Cir. 1987). See also Onstead v. Sullivan, 962 F.2d 803, 804 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that an ALJ's decision is conclusive upon a reviewing court if it is supported by "substantial evidence"). Thus......
-
Johnston v. Colvin
...is a function of the ALJ, who is the fact-finder. See Benskin v. Bowen, 830 F.2d 878, 882 (8th Cir. 1987). See also Onstead v. Sullivan, 962 F.2d 803, 804 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that an ALJ's decision is conclusive upon a reviewing court if it is supported by "substantial evidence"). Thus......
-
Frieden v. Colvin
...is a function of the ALJ, who is the fact-finder. See Benskin v. Bowen, 830 F.2d 878, 882 (8th Cir. 1987). See also Onstead v. Sullivan, 962 F.2d 803, 804 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that anALJ's decision is conclusive upon a reviewing court if it is supported by "substantial evidence"). Thus,......
-
Stephens v. Astrue
...is a function of the ALJ, who is the fact-finder. Benskin v. Bowen, 830 F.2d 878, 882 (8th Cir. 1987). See also Onstead v. Sullivan, 962 F.2d 803, 804 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that an ALJ's decision is conclusive upon a reviewing court if it is supported by "substantial evidence"). Thus, an......
-
Case survey
...opinion should be accorded substantial weight’” Gartman v. Apfel , 220 F.3d 918, 922 (8th Cir. 2000), quoting Onstead v. Sullivan, 962 F.2d 803, 805 (8th Cir. 1992). See also Baker v. Apfel , 159 F.3d 1140, 1145 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that usually, a treating doctor’s opinion is afforded ......
-
Table of Cases
...48 F.3d 321 (8th Cir. 1995), § 607.1 Onstad v. Shalala , 999 F.2d 1232, 1234 (8th Cir. 1993), §§ 203.1, 504.1, 504.6 Onstead v. Sullivan, 962 F.2d 803, 805 (8th Cir. 1992), § 202.2 Opgenorth v. Shalala , 897 F. Supp. 1199, 1203 (E.D. Wis. 1995), §§ 304.3, 1304 Oppenheim v. Finch , 495 F.2d ......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...opinion should be accorded substantial weight’” Gartman v. Apfel , 220 F.3d 918, 922 (8 th Cir. 2000), quoting Onstead v. Sullivan, 962 F.2d 803, 805 (8 th Cir. 1992). See also Baker v. Apfel , 159 F.3d 1140, 1145 (8 th Cir. 1998) (stating that usually, a treating doctor’s opinion is afford......
-
Table of cases
...48 F.3d 321 (8th Cir. 1995), § 607.1 Onstad v. Shalala , 999 F.2d 1232, 1234 (8th Cir. 1993), §§ 203.1, 504.1, 504.6 Onstead v. Sullivan, 962 F.2d 803, 805 (8th Cir. 1992), § 202.2 Opgenorth v. Shalala , 897 F. Supp. 1199, 1203 (E.D. Wis. 1995), §§ 304.3, 1304 Oppenheim v. Finch , 495 F.2d ......