Id. Work will normally be considered "substantial gainful activity" if earnings average more than $300.00 a month in calendar years between 1979 and 1990. Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820, 822 (8th Cir. 1992). Certain activities, however, which last a short time may be considered "unsuccessful work attempts."
In addition, the Commissioner argues the decision was "consistent with the decisions of other circuits." (Id., citing Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820 (8th Cir.1992); Barina v. Shalala, 35 F.3d 555 (4th Cir. 1994) (unpub.) Kenney v. Barnhart, 125 F. App'x 83, 84 (8th Cir. 2005) (unpub.)).
The 12 months after the end of Mr. King's period of insured status is a pertinent period in his case. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1), Section(s) 423(d)(1)(A); Orrick v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 368, 370 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); and Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820, 823-24 (8th Cir. 1992). The administrative law judge was therefore correct in disregarding Mr. King's medical and vocational history.
If the Claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, the claimant is not disabled under the Act and no further analysis is required. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b); Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820 (8th Cir. 1992). --------
If the Claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, the claimant is not disabled under the Act and no further analysis is required. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b); Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820 (8th Cir. 1992). It is well-settled that the district court will reverse an ALJ's decision only when it is based upon legal error or when it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
We recognize that if Plaintiff had decided not to work, she might have qualified for disability benefits because she may have been able to prove that she was incapable of engaging in substantial gainful activity for at least twelve months. See Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 1992). However, the fact that she had worked is at least some evidence of her ability to perform some work-related activities.
However, "[w]ork lasting more than six months cannot be considered an unsuccessful work attempt." King v. Chater, 72 F.3d 85, 87 (8th Cir.1995); Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820, 822-23 (8th Cir.1992). In addition, when a claimant works at substantial gainful activity levels for more than six months, this is generally evidence that a person is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1574(a)(1) and 416.974(a)(1).
Dr. Young's June 2005 observation that plaintiff experienced discomfort at the end of the workday does not detract from the ALJ's findings. Cf. Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 1992) ("Although the claimant may suffer serious back pain and cannot work without discomfort, she has continued to work despite her alleged pain.") A claimant will be found not to be disabled if she retains the RFC to perform the actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past relevant job. Jones v. Chater, 86 F.3d 823, 826 (8th Cir. 1996).
Then, §§ 404.1573 and 416.73 require further analysis of the listed factors. Only then can an assessment of substantial gainful activity be made. Reeder v. Apfel, 214 F.3d 984, 989 (8th Cir. 2000); Pickner v. Sullivan, 985 F.2d 401, 402 (8th Cir. 1993); Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820, 822-23 (8th Cir. 1992). In Rosen's case, the ALJ failed to take the initial step of evaluating Rosen's earnings for the relevant time period between December 19, 1998, and March 31, 2000. (Tr. 19-22.)
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted the view of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that the "duration of impairment" requirement is that the impairment be disabling for a continuous twelve-month period; impairment for a continuous twelve-month period is not enough. See Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590, 594-95 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Alexander v. Richardson, 451 F.2d 1185, 1186 (10th Cir. 1971)); see also Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 1992) (a disability benefits claimant who missed work three or four days a month as a result of a painful back condition did not show inability to engage in substantial gainful activity for a period longer than twelve months as required to show disability under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)). The ALJ, however, discussed all of the medical evidence, and concluded that Guerrero, although impaired, does not suffer from an impairment or combination of impairments sufficient to meet or equal the requirements for any listed impairment.