Deborah Todd-Smith v. Michael J. Astrue , 508 F. App'x 592 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 12-2091
    ___________________________
    Deborah Mae Todd-Smith
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Commissioner
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith
    ____________
    Submitted: November 6, 2012
    Filed: January 4, 2013
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Deborah Todd-Smith appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of
    supplemental security income (SSI). Todd-Smith protectively filed for SSI benefits
    in January 2007, alleging disability since January 1997 based on problems with her
    spine, back, legs, knees, and toe. Following a November 2008 hearing, an
    administrative law judge (ALJ) found that (1) Todd-Smith had degenerative disc
    disease of the lumbar spine, which was severe, but she did not have an impairment
    or combination of impairments that met or equaled a listed impairment; (2) her
    allegations regarding the limiting effects of her symptoms were not fully credible; (3)
    she had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform the exertional demands of
    light work with some additional limitations; and (4) she had no past relevant work,
    but based on the testimony of the vocational expert (VE), she could perform the jobs
    of machine tender, assembler, and poultry worker, which exist in significant numbers
    in the local and national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, and the
    district court affirmed. Upon careful review of the record and Todd-Smith’s
    arguments for reversal, see Perkins v. Astrue, 
    648 F.3d 892
    , 897 (8th Cir. 2011)
    (standard of review), we conclude that certain aspects of the ALJ’s decision were not
    supported by substantial evidence.
    Todd-Smith contends that the ALJ erred in finding her not credible regarding
    the degree of her pain and functional limitations. Although the ALJ is not required
    to discuss each credibility factor, see Halverson v. Astrue, 
    600 F.3d 922
    , 932 (8th Cir.
    2010), in this case the ALJ did not give any specific reasons for discounting Todd-
    Smith’s credibility, cf. McCoy v. Astrue, 
    648 F.3d 605
    , 614 (8th Cir. 2011) (if ALJ
    explicitly discredits claimant and gives good reasons for doing so, this court normally
    defers to ALJ’s credibility determination). To the extent the ALJ’s finding was based
    on the belief that Todd-Smith’s complaints were not fully supported by the objective
    medical evidence, the lack of objective evidence is only one factor to consider in
    evaluating credibility, see Curran-Kicksey v. Barnhart, 
    315 F.3d 964
    , 968-69 (8th Cir.
    2003), and in any event Todd-Smith’s medical records show a long history of back
    surgeries, epidural steroid injections, and significant pain medication. Moreover,
    Todd-Smith did not represent that she participated in any daily activities that were
    inconsistent with her testimony about her limitations. See Renstrom v. Astrue, 
    680 F.3d 1057
    , 1065 (8th Cir. 2012) (claimant’s report of daily activities is factor to
    consider in assessing credibility).
    -2-
    We also find that the ALJ’s RFC assessment and hypothetical to the VE did not
    contain many of the mental limitations set out by the doctors--even the less restrictive
    limitations set out by the consultative examiners--and thus the ALJ’s determination
    was unsupported by the record. See Tucker v. Barnhart, 
    363 F.3d 781
    , 784 (8th Cir.
    2004) (VE testimony constitutes substantial evidence only when based on proper
    hypothetical which includes all impairments supported by substantial evidence in
    record). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with
    this opinion.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-2091

Citation Numbers: 508 F. App'x 592

Judges: Wollman, Melloy, Shepherd

Filed Date: 1/4/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024