Richard A. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Sec'y, Health & Human Servs., Appellee, 783 F.2d 110 (8th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Richard A. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Sec'y, Health & Human Servs., Appellee, 783 F.2d 110 (8th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, last quoted 1998 · …hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true at p. 112 ✓
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, last quoted 2005 · …the hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the alj at p. 112 ✓
70 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ostmann v. Massanari (moed, 2001-09-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ostmann v. Massanari (2×)
E.D. Mo. · 2001 · confidence medium
Rautio, 862 F.2d at 176 ; Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nienhaus v. Massanari
D. Kan. · 2001 · confidence medium
Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kovach v. Apfel
E.D. Mo. · 2000 · confidence medium
Rautio, 862 F.2d at 176 ; Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Apfel
S.D. Iowa · 1999 · confidence medium
Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gary Haggard v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration
8th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
A hypothetical question “is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ.” See Davis v. Shalala, 31 F.3d 753, 755 (8th Cir.1994) (quoting Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gary Haggard v. Kenneth S. Apfel
8th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Specifically, he contends that the ALJ should have included his complaints of pain, headaches, and carpal tunnel syndrome in the hypothetical question. -5- A hypothetical question “is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ.” See Davis v. Shalala, 31 F.3d 753, 755 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Eiting v. Apfel
E.D. Mo. · 1999 · confidence medium
Rautio, 862 F.2d at 176 ; Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Monier v. Apfel (2×)
E.D. Mo. · 1998 · confidence medium
Rautio, 862 F.2d at 176 ; Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Chant v. Callahan
D. Neb. · 1997 · confidence medium
House v. Shalala, 34 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir.1994) (citing Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wiley v. Chater
D. Kan. · 1997 · confidence medium
SeeRoberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Callahan
N.D. Iowa · 1997 · confidence medium
Along those lines, “[T]he ALJ need not include every physiological impairment suggested by the evidence.” Id. (citing Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Orr v. Chater
N.D. Iowa · 1997 · confidence medium
Along those lines, “[T]he ALJ need not include every physiological impairment suggested by the evidence.” Id. (citing Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Julaine OSTRONSKI, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Appellee
8th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Julaine Ostronski v. Shirley S. Chater
8th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William Roe v. Shirley S. Chater
8th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
While the hypothetical question must set forth all the claimant's impairments, see Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1985), it need not use specific diagnostic or symptomatic terms where other descriptive terms can adequately define the claimant's impairments.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William ROE, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Appellee (2×)
8th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
While the hypothetical question must set forth all the claimant's impairments, see Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985), it need not use specific diagnostic or symptomatic terms where other descriptive terms can adequately define the claimant's impairments.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hanna v. Chater
N.D. Iowa · 1996 · confidence medium
However, “[w]hile it is clear that ‘questions posed to vocational experts ... should precisely set out the claimant’s particular physical and mental impairments,’ ” Greene v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 99, 101 (8th Cir.1991), a proper hypothetical question is “sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ.” House v. Shalala, 34 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir.1994) (citing Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985)); see also Cruze v. Chater, 85 F.3d 1320, 1322-23 (8th Cir.1996) (ALJ’s hypothetical need only include those impairments he finds substa…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wigg v. Chater
N.D. Iowa · 1995 · confidence medium
However, “[w]hile it is clear that ‘questions posed to vocational experts ... should precisely set out the claimant’s particular physical and mental impairments,’ Greene v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 99, 101 (8th Cir.1991), a proper hypothetical question is “sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ.” House v. Shalala, 34 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir.1994) (citing Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Derrig v. Chater
N.D. Iowa · 1995 · confidence medium
However, “[w]hile it is clear that ‘questions posed to vocational experts ... should precisely set out the claimant’s particular physical and mental impairments,’ Greene v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 99, 101 (8th Cir.1991), a proper hypothetical question is ‘sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ.’” House v. Shalala, 34 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir.1994) (citing Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alverio v. Chater
N.D. Iowa · 1995 · confidence medium
However, “[w]hile it is clear that ‘questions posed to vocational experts .... should precisely set out the claimant’s particular physical and mental impairments,’ Greene v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 99, 101 (8th Cir.1991), a proper hypothetical question is “sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ.” House v. Shalala, 34 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir.1994) (citing Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Norng v. Shalala
N.D. Iowa · 1995 · confidence medium
As the Eighth Circuit stated recently in House v. Shalala, 34 F.3d 691 (8th Cir.1994), “(w)hile it is clear that ‘questions posed to vocational experts ... should precisely set out the claimant’s particular physical and mental impairments,’ ” Greene v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 99, 101 (8th Cir.1991), 22 a proper hypothetical question “is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ.” House, 34 F.3d at 694 (citing Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Daniel HOUSE, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee
8th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
While it is clear that “questions posed to vocational experts ... should precisely set out the claimant’s particular physical and mental impairments,” Greene v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 99, 101 (8th Cir.1991), a proper hypothetical question “is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ.” Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) William DAVIS, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee
8th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
A hypothetical question “is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ.” Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Larry D. Fogard v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services
8th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
An ALJ "must set forth all of the claimant's disabilities when posing a hypothetical question to [an] expert," but "the hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth these impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ." Sobania v. Secretary, 879 F.2d 441, 445 (8th Cir. 1989); Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bill R. Nance v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services (2×)
7th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Rather, the hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ." Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985). 50 In this case, the ALJ found that the plaintiff's testimony as to the disabling effects of his medical problems was not credible.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James THOMAS, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee (2×)
8th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985) 6 The standard of review seems to differ from circuit to circuit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Margie M. PENN, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee
8th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
See Bradshaw v. Heckler, 810 F.2d 786, 790 (8th Cir.1987) (the hypothetical question to the VE “must state with precision the physical and mental impairments of the claimant”); Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (“the hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALT”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David SOBANIA, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee
8th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
We have held that in utilizing the testimony of a vocational expert for this purpose, the AU “must set forth all of the claimant’s disabilities when posing a hypothetical question to [the] ...' expert.” Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) John W. RAUTIO, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellee
8th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985); Baugus v. Secretary of HHS, 717 F.2d 443 , 447 n. 5 (8th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ruhl v. Bowen
W.D. Mo. · 1989 · confidence medium
Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985); Baugus v. Secretary of HHS, 717 F.2d 443 , 447 n. 5 (8th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sumpter v. Bowen
D. Wyo. · 1989 · confidence medium
The Tenth Circuit has adopted such a view by citing with approval another Eight Circuit case which relies on Baugus , namely Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. Bowen
W.D. Mo. · 1987 · confidence medium
Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jerry D. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
10th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
In any event, there has been no authority presented to us which would justify reversing this case and remanding it to the AU for further proceedings simply because some questions by the AU were, perhaps, objectionable in form. 3 See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985), where the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s affirmance of a Secretary’s denial of benefits and, in so doing, rejected the claim that an AU’s hypothetical questions of a vocational expert were improper because they did not set forth all of the claimant’s alleged disabilities.
cited Cited "see" Salkic v. Berryhill
E.D. Mo. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited "see" Russell v. Astrue
D. Minnesota · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Haggard v. Apfel, 175 F.3d 591, 595 (8th Cir.1999) (“A hypothetical question ‘is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ.’ ”), quoting Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985); Andres v. Boxeen, 870 F.2d 453, 455 (8th Cir.1989). 3.
discussed Cited "see" Evelyn Clay v. JoAnne Barnhart
8th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1985) (noting that “the hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ”).
cited Cited "see" Evelyn Clay v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration
8th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985) (noting that “the hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ”).
cited Cited "see" McKITRICK v. Barnhart
D. Kan. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited "see" JAMES HARVEY, — v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, —
8th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110 , 112 *1017 (8th Cir.1985) (noting that “the hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ”).
discussed Cited "see" James Harvey v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart
8th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1985) (noting that “the hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ”).
cited Cited "see" Rebeck v. Barnhart
D. Kan. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited "see" Folsom v. Barnhart
D. Kan. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited "see" Richard Fredrickson v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart
8th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Richard Fredrickson v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security Administration
8th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Yeates v. Barnhart
D. Kan. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited "see" Arensman v. Apfel
D. Kan. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985) (the hypothetical question is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ). *1256 The only evidence plaintiff cites to show her problems with concentration, persistence, or pace is that Village Cleaners terminated her employment because she was too slow and Dr. Hall stated that plaintiff might have difficulty making judgments or maintaining required speed as a result of her mild mental retardation.
discussed Cited "see" Douglas D. Dorsey, Jr. v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security
8th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam) ("hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true"); see also Roe v. Chater, 92 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir.1996) (VE testimony based on proper hypothetical question constitutes substantial evidence). 4 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. * Kenneth S. Apfel has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c) 1 The Honorable Beverly R.
cited Cited "see" Douglas Dorsey, Jr. v. John J. Callahan
8th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (“hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true”); 1 The Honorable Beverly R.
cited Cited "see" Kenneth W. Thompson v. Railroad Retirement Board
8th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam) ("hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true").
cited Cited "see" Kenneth W. Thompson v. RRRB
8th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
12 soc.sec.rep.ser. 245, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 16,606 Richard A. Roberts
v.
Margaret Heckler, Secretary, Health and Human Services
17-2181.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Nov 20, 1985.
783 F.2d 110
1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 26137
Timothy C. Harlan, Columbia, Mo., for appellant., Robert J. Aiken, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, Mo., for appellee.
Lay, Arnold, Fagg.
Cited by 62 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Richard Roberts filed an application for social security disability benefits on June 17, 1982, claiming a disability onset date of October 1973. In his application Roberts alleged that he was disabled from arthritis in his back and from an amputation of his right leg below the knee. The amputation occurred in 1938. The Secretary denied Roberts’ application both initially and upon reconsideration. Roberts then requested an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge (AU), which was held on January 4, 1984.

Following the hearing, the AU determined that Roberts’ impairments did not prevent him from performing his “past relevant work” as an elementary schoolteacher, and therefore, he was not under a disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The Appeals Council affirmed the AU’s determination which became the final decision of the Secretary.

Roberts then filed the present action in federal district court. Upon granting the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment, the district court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the AU. After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the district court that there is substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s decision. Thus, we affirm.

According to the record, Roberts first began to experience back pain in 1972. In October of 1972, surgery was performed to remove a disc and to decompress a nerve root. After surgery, Roberts returned to his former teaching job. In subsequent medical examinations, Roberts told his doctor he wished to retire due to his back pain. However, the doctor clearly indicated in his medical reports that Roberts was not totally disabled and advised Roberts to continue working.

In October of 1973, Roberts stopped working full time as a teacher. Thereafter, he occasionally did some substitute teaching. He also sold real estate from 1976 to 1981.

Roberts was hospitalized on two other occasions. In 1979, Roberts was admitted to the hospital because of his back pain. His condition was diagnosed as mild degenerative disc disease and minimal degenerative arthritis. Roberts spent time in the hospital again in 1982 for dizziness due to an inner ear problem. On the day of his discharge, Roberts was reported as “doing well” and as having “no further complaints of dizziness.”

Several consultative physical examinations were conducted which indicated that Roberts suffered from degenerative arthritis. With one exception, no doctor diagnosed Roberts as being totally disabled.

After considering all of the medical evidence, Roberts’ work history, his testimony, his appearance and demeanor at the hearing, and the vocational expert’s testimony, the AU determined that Roberts’ impairments did not prevent him from performing his “past relevant work” as a schoolteacher. The AU further found that Roberts’ testimony regarding his pain was exaggerated.

After our review of the record, we find substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s decision that Roberts’ impairment does not preclude him from performing his past work as a school-teacher. It is clear that the AU considered all relevant factors including Roberts’ subjective complaints of pain in making his determination. While the AU observed that Roberts suffers from pain due to his physical impairments, the AU concluded that the pain[*112] was not disabling to the extent that he was incapable of performing the duties of an elementary school-teacher. We conclude that this finding is supported by substantial evidence. Smith v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 184, 187 (8th Cir.1985).

Roberts also claims that the hypothetical question submitted to the vocational expert was improper because it did not set forth all of Roberts’ physical impairments. Specifically, Roberts claims that the question propounded to the vocational expert did not mention either Roberts’ inability to stand and sit for significant periods of time without being able to lie down, or his problems with dizziness and nausea.

It is true that the AU must set forth all of the claimant's disabilities when posing a hypothetical question to a vocational expert. However, the AU is not required to include every physiological impairment suggested by the evidence. Rather, the hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the AU. Baugus v. Secretary, 717 F.2d 443, 447 n. 5 (8th Cir.1983). In reaching his determination, the AU considered and rejected Roberts’ allegations of nausea and dizziness and of disabling pain due to sitting and standing for long periods of time.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision. See 8th Cir.R. 14.