Tracy Green v. Michael J. Astrue , 494 F. App'x 695 ( 2012 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-2032
___________________________
Tracy J. Green
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Batesville
____________
Submitted: November 16, 2012
Filed: December 5, 2012
[Unpublished]
____________
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Tracy J. Green appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of
disability insurance benefits. Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court
that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the Commissioner’s
decision, and that Mrs. Green’s challenges to the decision do not warrant reversal.
See Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825, 828 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantial
evidence is relevant evidence that reasonable mind would find adequate to support
Commissioner’s decision, which will not be reversed merely because some evidence
may support opposite conclusion). Among other things, we disagree with Mrs.
Green’s contention that she is disabled under Listing 12.05C. See Carlson v. Astrue,
604 F.3d 589, 593 (8th Cir. 2010) (burden is on claimant to establish impairment
meets all listing criteria). We also find that the mental residual functional capacity
(RFC) determination, and thus the hypothetical to the vocational expert (VE),
adequately accounted for Mrs. Green’s mental limitations. See Jones v. Astrue, 619
F.3d 963, 971 (8th Cir. 2010) (RFC determination must be supported by some
medical evidence); see also Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549, 560-61 (8th Cir. 2011)
(hypothetical to VE must capture concrete consequences of claimant’s impairments).
The district court is affirmed.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern
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-