Heiderscheidt v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
ORDER ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in toto. The Defendant's objection is overruled. Further the decision of ALJ is hereby affirmed and plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on July 5, 2011. (lw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
LARISSA L. HEIDERSCHEIDT
Civil No. 10-3058
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security
O R D E R
Now on this 5th day of July, 2011, comes on for consideration
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) and
plaintiff's objection thereto (Doc. 11). The Court, being well and
sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows:
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation in which she finds substantial evidence supporting
the ALJ's decision denying plaintiff benefits, and thus recommends
dismissed with prejudice.
Specifically, the ALJ made an explicit finding that the
claimant's subjective complaints about the intensity, persistence
and limiting effects of her pain are not credible.
determination, it failed to follow the requirements set out in
Polaski v. Heckler, 751 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 1984).
analysis that courts should follow when evaluating subjective
complaints of pain.
Specifically, the court held the ALJ must
consider "the claimant's prior work history; daily activities;
duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; dosage, effectiveness
and side effects of medication; precipitating and aggravating
factors; and functional restrictions."
Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d
963, 975 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted).
The ALJ is
not required to discuss each Polaski factor "as long as [he or she]
credibility "as long as the ALJ explicitly discredits a claimant's
testimony and gives good reason for doing so."
Schultz v. Astrue,
479 F.3d 979, 983 (8th Cir. 2007)(internal quotation omitted).
Here, while the ALJ did not directly cite Polaski, which
is the Eighth Circuit's preference, the ALJ cited and conducted an
analysis pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.929, which mirrors in large
part the Polaski factors.
See Schultz, 479 F.3d at 983.
the ALJ thoroughly reviewed and discussed plaintiff's medical
records and the opinion evidence offered.
The ALJ also considered
the numerous daily activities that plaintiff was able to perform
subjective complaints about pain were inconsistent with her daily
The Court finds that the ALJ adequately applied the
See Schultz 479 F.3d at 983 (concluding that ALJ
properly considered the Polaski factors even though the ALJ did not
cite to Polaski directly).
The Court concludes, after a review of the ALJ's decision
and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, that the
ALJ's determination is supported by substantial evidence and,
therefore, the ALJ's decision will be affirmed and the plaintiff's
complaint will be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendant's objection is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation is adopted in toto.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the decision of the
dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Jimm Larry Hendren
HON. JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?