Brenda Moeding v. Andrew Saul ( 2020 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 20-1884
___________________________
Brenda K. Moeding
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security Administration
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: December 17, 2020
Filed: December 29, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Brenda Moeding appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. After careful
1
The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
consideration of Moeding’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 Moeding’s subjective complaints, and that substantial
evidence supported the ALJ’s findings regarding Moeding’s residual functional
capacity (RFC). See Blackburn v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 853, 859-60 (8th Cir. 2014)
(ALJ’s determination of claimant’s RFC was supported by substantial evidence, as
it was based on detailed discussion of claimant’s medical history and his daily
activities); Turpin v. Colvin, 750 F.3d 989, 994 (8th Cir. 2014) (ALJ properly
discredited claimant’s testimony based on inconsistencies with medical record,
evidence of improvement in her conditions, and her description of her daily
activities). We also find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion--
based on the vocational expert’s (VE) testimony--that Moeding was not disabled. See
Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 927 (8th Cir. 2011) (VE’s answer to hypothetical
question that included claimant’s limitations as determined by ALJ constituted
substantial evidence supporting denial of benefits).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-