Public Health – Disability benefits

Listen to this article

Where a disability claimant suffering from osteogenesis imperfect is capable of performing a sufficient number of jobs in the regional economy, his claim was properly denied.

“The ALJ also considered Shideler’s testimony regarding his difficulties performing daily living activities (though Shideler admitted he can still drive, an act which requires some manual dexterity with one’s hands) as well as his past work history, finding that he could no longer work as a carpet cleaner, as that would be too physically demanding for him now. She asked about the medications he used to treat his pain and considered the testimony of his roommate. In addition to the objective medical evidence in the record, she considered all of the factors required in the Code of Federal Regulations, including daily living activities; the duration, frequency, and intensity of Shideler’s pain; factors that precipitate and aggravate his condition; the types of treatment he received; the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the medications he takes; and the functional restrictions on Shideler. See id. at 703 (citing Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984)). The ALJ ultimately found, based on the vocational expert’s testimony regarding the range of sedentary jobs available to someone in Shideler’s condition, that Shideler ‘was capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy.

A finding of “not disabled” is, therefore, appropriate . . . .’ The ALJ here built ‘a logical bridge from the evidence to [her] conclusion,’ Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737, 744 (7th Cir. 2005), and her decision was supported by substantial evidence.”

Affirmed.

11-3284 Shideler v. Astrue

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Miller, J., Manion, J.

Full Text