Case ID: f-appx_180/html/0619-01.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

Bobby L. BOX, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Appellee.
    No. 05-1648.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted May 4, 2006.
    Filed May 12, 2006.
    Raymond Lee Niblock, Niblock Law Firm, Fayetteville, AR, for Appellant.
    
      Stacey E. McCord, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, Katauna J. King, Social Security Administration, Dallas, TX, for Appellee.
    Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   [UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Box, who was born in 1958, sought disability insurance benefits alleging he had been unable to work since May 2001 because he suffered from Crohn’s disease, sleep apnea, depression, acid reflux, and a degenerative disc disease affecting his lower back. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an adverse decision, in part based on a finding that Box retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform unskilled medium work, including some of his past jobs. After the Appeals Council denied review, the district court upheld the agency’s decision, and Box appeals.

Following careful review, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s decision. Contrary to Box’s arguments, we conclude that the ALJ gave sufficient reasons to discount Box’s subjective complaints, provided sufficient analysis in support of the ALJ’s conclusion that Box retained the RFC to perform his past work, and made proper use of the vocational expert’s hearing testimony in response to hypothetical questions. See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 792-94 (8th Cir.2005) (this court will not disturb decision of ALJ who considers, but for good cause expressly discredits, claimant’s subjective complaints; hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth impairments supported by substantial evidence in record and accepted as true); Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir.2004) (in determining RFC, ALJ must consider medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable H. David Young, 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).