Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Flynn v. Chater
No. 96-1982 (8th Cir. Feb. 25, 1997). ; Clearinghouse Number: 52202
Description
Claim for Children’s and Adult Disability Benefits Was Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
Abstract
Affirming, the Eighth Circuit has held that appellant’s claim
for disability benefits was not supported by substantial evidence.
In 1978, as a child, appellant suffered injuries in an automobile
accident that resulted in sporadic pain in his foot, ankle, leg,
hip, back, and neck. Appellant also has a learning disability and
was placed in special education classes during his childhood. His
1980 and 1987 applications for SSI disability benefits were denied,
as was a 1993 application he filed as an adult. Affirming the
denials, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that, although
appellant had had severe impairments as a child, they were not
comparable to those that would have disabled an adult. In addition,
the ALJ held that appellant’s impairments did not meet or
equal the listings and that he could perform work, and therefore
was not disabled as an adult. Affirming, the court of appeals
rejected appellant’s argument that the ALJ had failed to
include all of appellant’s impairments in questioning the
vocational expert. Noting the ALJ’s finding that many of
appellant’s problems were due to a "lack of
motivation," the court held that it was not error for the ALJ
to limit his hypothetical question to the vocational expert to only
those impairments which the ALJ accepted as true. The court also
rejected appellant’s argument that the ALJ had improperly
applied the credibility analysis mandated by Polaski v. Heckler,
739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984). The court found that it is perfectly
appropriate for an ALJ to finding a claimant’s testimony to
be credible but to disagree with the claimant’s ultimate
conclusion of disability as derived from that testimony.
