Anteria Pratt v. Commissioner, Social Security ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 18-1510
    ___________________________
    Anteria Pratt
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Commissioner, Social Security Administration
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
    ____________
    Submitted: November 26, 2018
    Filed: December 4, 2018
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Anteria Pratt challenges a district court1 order affirming the denial of disability
    insurance benefits (DIB). After careful consideration of Pratt’s arguments for
    1
    The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    reversal, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence on the record as a
    whole supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determination that Pratt was
    not entitled to DIB. See Chismarich v. Berryhill, 
    888 F.3d 978
    , 979 (8th Cir. 2018)
    (per curiam) (de novo review). Specifically, we find that substantial evidence
    supports the ALJ’s determination that Pratt’s neck and back problems were not severe
    impairments, see Martise v. Astrue, 
    641 F.3d 909
    , 923 (8th Cir. 2011) (severe
    impairment is one which significantly limits claimant’s physical or mental ability to
    engage in basic work activities); and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
    mental residual functional capacity determination, as the ALJ properly discounted the
    opinion of the medical expert to the extent the expert suggested additional limitations,
    see Estes v. Barnhart, 
    275 F.3d 722
    , 725 (8th Cir. 2002) (ALJ may reject opinion of
    any medical expert if it is inconsistent with medical record as whole). Accordingly,
    the judgment is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1510

Filed Date: 12/4/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/4/2018