___________
No. 95-3741
___________
Joann Smith, *
*
Plaintiff - Appellant, *
*
v. * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
Shirley S. Chater, * Eastern District of Arkansas.
Commissioner, Social Security *
Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Defendant - Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: April 12, 1996
Filed: May 10, 1996
___________
Before MAGILL and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG,* Judge.
___________
PER CURIAM.
In July 1991, Joann Smith applied for Social Security Supplemental
Security Income benefits, claiming that she had been disabled since May
1989 by arthritis, diabetes, headaches, fibrosis, anxiety, depression, and
hypertension. Following an administrative hearing, the Commissioner's
administrative law judge concluded that Smith has a severe combination of
impairments but does not have a listed impairment, that she is unable to
perform her past relevant work as nurse's aide and hospital housekeeper,
that her complaints of disabling pain are not credible, and that she is not
disabled because she has the residual functional
*The HONORABLE RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, Judge, United States Court
of International Trade, sitting by designation.
capacity to perform the full range of sedentary work as defined in 20
C.F.R. § 416.967.
The Commissioner's Appeals Council denied Smith's request for
administrative review, ruling that an additional March 1994 medical report
submitted by Smith was not relevant to the ALJ's decision that she was not
disabled prior to February 25, 1994. Smith then sought judicial review of
the Commissioner's denial of her SSI application. The district court1
granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner, concluding in a
thorough Memorandum and Order that substantial evidence in the
administrative record supports the Commissioner's decision. Smith appeals,
arguing that substantial evidence does not support the Commissioner's
decision because Smith's nonexertional impairments were improperly
discounted in applying the Commissioner's Medical-Vocational Guidelines.
After careful review of the record, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1
The HONORABLE HENRY L. JONES, JR., United States Magistrate
Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was
referred for decision on the merits by consent of the parties
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
-2-