Thaisheena Nicholson v. Nancy A. Berryhill

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-4180
___________________________
Thaisheena M. Nicholson
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: August 7, 2017
Filed: August 18, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Thaisheena M. Nicholson appeals the district court’s1 judgment upholding the
decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security to deny Nicholson’s
1
The Honorable Sarah W. Hays, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Western 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).
application for supplemental security income. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, this court affirms.
The record supports the district court’s conclusion that the administrative law
judge (ALJ) did not grant Nicholson’s request to reopen and reconsider the merits of
her prior applications for benefits, as the ALJ did in Jelinek v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 507,
508 (8th Cir. 1985). Absent a de facto administrative reopening, this court has no
jurisdiction to review the denial of a request to reopen without a hearing. See
California v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-08 (1977). Upon de novo review, this court
finds the benefits decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a
whole. See Teague v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 611, 614 (8th Cir. 2011). The ALJ’s
credibility findings are entitled to deference because those findings are supported by
good reasons and substantial evidence. See Mabry v. Colvin, 815 F.3d 386, 389 (8th
Cir. 2016). The ALJ was not required to give controlling weight to the opinions of
treating physicians insofar as those opinions were conclusory, based on subjective
complaints, or outside the doctors’ area of expertise. See Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d
1082, 1088-89 (8th Cir. 2016); Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 965-67 (8th Cir.
2010).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-