Karen OBERST, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee

Eighth Circuit

Karen OBERST, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee

2 F.3d 249

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 21, 1993

Docket92-2865

StatusPublished

Cited by72 cases

This text of 2 F.3d 249 (Karen OBERST, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Karen OBERST, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee, 2 F.3d 249 (8th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Karen Oberst appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Secretary’s denial of social security disability and supplemental security benefits. After careful review, we affirm.

The Secretary’s denial must be upheld if substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the Secretary’s conclusion that Oberst is not disabled. Baker v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 955 F.2d 552, 554 (8th Cir.1992). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough so that a reasonable mind might find it adequate to support the conclusion. Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir.1992). Thus, “if it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the agency’s findings, we must affirm the decision.” Id.

Oberst argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not give adequate weight to the opinion of her treating physician. She also argues that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert was flawed. She contends that the question failed to precisely relate her mental limitations and impairments, in conjunction with her work history.

Oberst is a 46-year-old female. She has a high school diploma and attended one year of college. Her past relevant work experience includes work as an office clerk, waitress, cook, housekeeper, cashier, kitchen helper, hotel maid, dish washer, and paste-out worker for a newspaper. She is a diagnosed schizophrenic and also has back problems. The ALJ found that, although her impairments prevent her from performing her past employment, there are jobs in the national and local economy, such as that of a mail clerk, that she can perform. We agree with the rationale set forth in the district court’s opinion and affirm for the reasons stated in that opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

We add only that the record shows that the vocational expert did consider the claimant’s work history in forming the opinion that there were jobs in the economy that Oberst could perform. (Transcript at 56).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Karen Oberst appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Secretary’s denial of social security disability and supplemental security benefits. After careful review, we affirm.

The Secretary’s denial must be upheld if substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the Secretary’s conclusion that Oberst is not disabled. Baker v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 955 F.2d 552, 554 (8th Cir.1992). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough so that a reasonable mind might find it adequate to support the conclusion. Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir.1992). Thus, “if it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the agency’s findings, we must affirm the decision.” Id.

Oberst argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not give adequate weight to the opinion of her treating physician. She also argues that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert was flawed. She contends that the question failed to precisely relate her mental limitations and impairments, in conjunction with her work history.

Oberst is a 46-year-old female. She has a high school diploma and attended one year of college. Her past relevant work experience includes work as an office clerk, waitress, cook, housekeeper, cashier, kitchen helper, hotel maid, dish washer, and paste-out worker for a newspaper. She is a diagnosed schizophrenic and also has back problems. The ALJ found that, although her impairments prevent her from performing her past employment, there are jobs in the national and local economy, such as that of a mail clerk, that she can perform. We agree with the rationale set forth in the district court’s opinion and affirm for the reasons stated in that opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

We add only that the record shows that the vocational expert did consider the claimant’s work history in forming the opinion that there were jobs in the economy that Oberst could perform. (Transcript at 56).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F.3d 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karen-oberst-appellant-v-donna-e-shalala-secretary-of-health-and-human-ca8-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack