Taby Hargett v. Nancy A. Berryhill , 703 F. App'x 445 ( 2017 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-4263
___________________________
Taby L. Hargett
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: November 21, 2017
Filed: November 28, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Taby Hargett appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of
supplemental security insurance benefits. Upon de novo review, we agree with the
1
The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
district court that the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) decision is supported by
substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Igo v. Colvin, 839 F.3d 724, 728
(8th Cir. 2016). Specifically, we conclude that the ALJ properly weighed the medical
evidence and Hargett’s subjective statements in evaluating her impairments and
formulating her residual functional capacity (RFC), see Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d
521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013) (explaining that the RFC determination is based on all
relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and
others, and the claimant’s own description of her limitations); Halverson v. Astrue,
600 F.3d 922, 929-30 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that a treating physician’s opinions are
entitled to less weight when they are inconsistent or contrary to the medical evidence
as a whole); McGeorge v. Barnhart, 321 F.3d 766, 769 (8th Cir. 2003) (finding the
ALJ properly limited the RFC determination to only those impairments and
limitations he determined were credible); and that Hargett did not establish a more
restrictive RFC, see Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 923 (8th Cir. 2011) (stating that
the burden of persuasion to prove disability and demonstrate RFC remains on the
claimant). Further, the ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s (VE’s)
response to the hypothetical that the ALJ posed, which was consistent with the ALJ’s
RFC findings. See Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549, 560-61 (8th Cir. 2011)
(concluding that a VE’s testimony that is based on a hypothetical that accounts for all
of the claimant’s proven impairments constitutes substantial evidence). The judgment
of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-