Barbara Moore v. Andrew Saul ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •               United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-3223
    ___________________________
    Barbara Jo Moore
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security Administration
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
    ____________
    Submitted: June 8, 2021
    Filed: June 11, 2021
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Barbara Moore appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of
    disability insurance benefits. Having considered Moore’s arguments for reversal, we
    agree with the court that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the
    adverse decision. See Swink v. Saul, 
    931 F.3d 765
    , 769 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo
    review of district court’s judgment; Commissioner’s decision will be upheld if it is
    supported by substantial evidence in record as whole). Specifically, we find that the
    administrative law judge (ALJ) properly evaluated Moore’s subjective complaints and
    the examining physician’s opinion. See 
    id. at 771
     (ALJ’s credibility determination,
    which analyzed objective medical records and claimant’s daily activities, was
    supported by substantial evidence); Owen v. Astrue, 
    551 F.3d 792
    , 800 (8th Cir.
    2008) (factors for ALJ to consider in weighing medical opinion). We also find that
    substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC)
    determination, see Kamann v. Colvin, 
    721 F.3d 945
    , 951 (8th Cir. 2013) (substantial
    evidence, including findings on physical examinations, examiner’s report, and
    claimant’s daily activities, supported ALJ’s RFC determination); and the ALJ’s
    conclusion--based on the vocational expert’s (VE) testimony--that Moore was not
    disabled, see Schwandt v. Berryhill, 
    926 F.3d 1004
    , 1013 (8th Cir. 2019) (VE’s
    testimony that individual with same limitations as claimant could perform claimant’s
    prior work constituted substantial evidence supporting determination that claimant
    could perform her past relevant work).
    The judgment is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the
    Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
    consent of the parties pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c).
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-3223

Filed Date: 6/11/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/11/2021