Case ID: f-appx_653/html/0853-02.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

Judy SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-3359
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 3, 2016
    Filed: June 9, 2016
    
      Anthony W. Bartels, Attorney, Jones-boro, AR, Eugene- Gregory Wallace, Campbell University School of Law, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Stacey. E. McCord, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, Michael McGaughran, Una McGeehan, Eric Bradford Tucker, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Judy Smith appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income after her hearing before an administrative' law judge (ALJ). For reversal, Smith argues that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, because the ALJ’s adverse credibility finding is belied by the, objective medical evidence, her treatment history, and her limited daily activities. Following careful de novo review, we reject this argument and affirm. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2000). The ALJ considered requisite factors under Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984), and gave multiple valid reasons for discrediting Smith that were supported by the record, see Lowe, 226 F.3d at 972 (where adequately explained and supported, credibility findings are for ALJ to make).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Patricia S. Harris, 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).