Russell v. Barnhart , 111 F. App'x 26 ( 2004 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-1192
JANE ANN RUSSELL,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JO ANNE BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Raymond J. Kelly on brief for appellant.
Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney, David L.
Broderick, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Lisa G. Smoller, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, on brief for
appellee.
October 7, 2004
Per Curiam. Claimant Jane Russell has appealed a
district court judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner
of Health and Human Services which denied Russell's application for
supplemental security income payments. We affirm.
Russell first claims that the Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") failed to properly assess her credibility and lacked an
adequate foundation for finding her subjective complaints of pain
"not entirely credible." One of the reasons the ALJ partially
discounted Russell's testimony was because "she failed to follow
prescribed treatment on a regular basis." We have examined the
record and find substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding
of "sporadic adherence to prescribed therapy." A claimant's
failure to follow prescribed medical treatment contradicts
subjective complaints of disabling conditions and supports an ALJ's
decision to deny benefits. See Tsarelka v. Secretary of Health &
Human Servs., 842 F.2d 529, 534 (1st Cir. 1988) (per curiam)
(affirming denial of benefits where claimant did not follow through
with securing medical treatment); Dumas v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d
1545, 1553 (2d Cir. 1983) (affirming denial of benefits where
claimant failed to heed doctor's diet recommendation which would
have helped hypertension and headaches).
Russell next claims that the ALJ erred in determining
that she had the residual functional capacity to perform light
work. The ALJ's residual functional capacity determination has
-2-
substantial support in the record. We have considered Russell's
various arguments and find them without merit.
Finally, Russell claims that the ALJ erred in using the
Medical-Vocational Guidelines to determine the range of work that
she could perform because her migraine headaches cause non-
exertional limitations that called for testimony from a vocational
expert. There is substantial support for the ALJ's finding that
Russell's migraines had no non-exertional impact on her residual
functional capacity. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in applying
the Guidelines. Cf. Ortiz v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs.,
890 F.2d 520, 524 (1st Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (noting that
Guidelines are not applicable where claimant has significant non-
exertional impairments).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 1st
Cir. R. 27(c).
-3-