Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0918-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Donna Lynn HENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-1640.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 21, 2014.
    Filed: Dec. 4, 2014.
    Matthew J. Ketcham, Noland & Caddell, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Pamela Das Koehler, Special, Adrial B. McField, Special, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Donna Lynn Henry appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Owens v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 850, 851 (8th Cir.2013). Specifically, contrary to Henry’s assertions on appeal, the ALJ’s credibility determination is entitled to deference because it is based on several valid reasons, see McDade v. Astrue, 720 F.3d 994, 998 (8th Cir.2013); the ALJ properly discounted the RFC opinions of two treating physicians, see Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 897-98 (8th Cir.2011) (treating physician’s opinion does not automatically control); Davidson v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 987, 990-91 (8th Cir.2007) (treating physician’s opinion is properly discounted when it is inconsistent with physician’s own treatment notes); Henry failed to meet her burden of establishing more limitations than those found by the ALJ in his RFC determination, which were consistent with the medical evidence, see Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 923 (8th Cir.2011) (claimant bears burden of persuasion to prove disability and demonstrate RFC; RFC is medical question so it must be supported by some medical evidence); and because the ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert encompassed all of Henry’s proven impairments, the vocational expert’s response to the hypothetical constituted substantial evidence, see Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549, 560-61 (8th Cir.2011). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 
      
      . The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Erin Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.