Kimberly Benson v. Andrew Saul ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 18-3619
    ___________________________
    Kimberly A. Benson
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Andrew Saul,1 Commissioner of Social Security Administration
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado
    ____________
    Submitted: September 20, 2019
    Filed: September 25, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    1
    Andrew Saul has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social Security,
    and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).
    Kimberly Benson appeals the district court’s2 order affirming the denial of
    disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. After careful
    consideration of Benson’s arguments for reversal, we agree with the court that
    substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Nash
    v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 
    907 F.3d 1086
    , 1089 (8th Cir. 2018) (de novo review
    of district court’s judgment; affirmance is warranted if Commissioner’s decision is
    supported by substantial evidence in record as whole). Specifically, substantial
    evidence supported the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) findings that Benson’s
    impairments did not meet any listings, see Blackburn v. Colvin, 
    761 F.3d 853
    , 859
    (8th Cir. 2014) (upholding ALJ’s finding that listing 12.04 was not met where there
    was no evidence that claimant had episodes of decompensation of requisite length and
    frequency); the ALJ’s credibility determination, see Nash, 907 F.3d at 1090 (this
    court defers to ALJ’s credibility determination as long as it is supported by good
    reasons and substantial evidence); and the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinions,
    see Lawson v. Colvin, 
    807 F.3d 962
    , 966 (8th Cir. 2015) (ALJ did not err in giving
    less weight to physician’s low Global Assessment of Functioning score, which was
    inconsistent with overall evidence and not supported by claimant’s functioning). We
    also find that the post-hearing evidence Benson submitted does not undermine the
    ALJ’s decision. See Stephens v. Shalala, 
    50 F.3d 538
    , 541 (8th Cir. 1995) (treating
    physician’s opinion submitted to Appeals Council that did not cite any objective
    evidence to support its conclusions and contradicted examination finding did not
    detract from substantial evidence supporting ALJ findings).
    The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    2
    The Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the
    Western District of Arkansas, 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: 18-3619

Filed Date: 9/25/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/25/2019