McDade v. Astrue, No. 12-3091 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff appealed the denial of his application for disability benefits and supplemental security income (SSI). The court concluded that the ALJ did not err in discounting the most severe subjective complaints of pain because the ALJ properly applied Polaski v. Heckler and provided valid reasons for discounting plaintiff and his mother's testimony; the ALJ properly weighed the opinions of plaintiff's treating physicians; the ALJ properly used the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the "Grids") to determine whether there was substantial gainful employment plaintiff could perform; and the court agreed with the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff did not satisfy the criteria for Listing 1.04 or any other listing in the Adult Listing of Impairments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil case - Social Security. ALJ gave sufficient weight to claimant's subjective complaints of pain under this court's decision in Polaski v. Heckler; the ALJ also properly weighed the medical opinions of claimant's physicians; ALJ properly used the Medical-Vocational Guidelines to determine that there was substantial gainful employment claimant could perform; ALJ did not err in concluding claimant did not satisfy Listing 1.04.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.