Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02779/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02779-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2779

___________

Marlyce K. Kemnitz, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of North Dakota.

*

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Social Security, *

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 13, 2010

Filed: July 30, 2010

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, LOKEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Marlyce K. Kemnitz applied for Social Security disability benefits, alleging an

onset date of December 15, 1998. Her last insured date was June 30, 2004. After an

evidentiary hearing, the Commissioner’s administrative law judge (ALJ) found that

Kemnitz suffered from chronic fatigue and early stage multiple sclerosis (MS) but

retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a full range of sedentary

work and therefore was not disabled. On appeal, the district court concluded that

substantial evidence on the administrative record as a whole did not support the ALJ’s

RFC analysis and remanded to the agency for further development of the record.

Kemnitz v. Barnhart, No. 1:05-cv-125 (D.N.D. Oct. 30, 2006). 

Appellate Case: 09-2779 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688638
1

The HONORABLE DANIEL L. HOVLAND, Chief Judge of the United States

District Court for the District of North Dakota, adopting the Report and

Recommendation of the HONORABLE CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr., United States

Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota.

-2-

On remand, a second ALJ, after receiving additional medical records and

conducting a second evidentiary hearing, again denied disability benefits. The ALJ

found (i) that Kemnitz’s medical impairments as of June 30, 2004 -- mild to moderate

lower back degenerative changes, morbid obesity, and early stage and mild MS --

constituted either not severe impairments or severe impairments that did not reduce

her RFC below the medium exertional level; (ii) that testimony by Kemnitz and her

husband claiming extreme limitations on her ability to perform daily activities was not

credible and not supported by medical evidence; and (iii) that medical records after

June 30, 2004, including a third MRI brain scan in July 2006, showed her MS to be

“clinically stable.” The ALJ found that Kemnitz retained the RFC to perform the full

range of medium level work activity through June 30, 2004, and therefore was not

disabled as of her last day of eligibility for disability insurance benefits. See 20

C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

Kemnitz petitioned for judicial review of this final agency action. The district

court1

 affirmed, rejecting Kemnitz’s contentions that substantial evidence does not

support the Commissioner’s adverse disability determination; that the ALJ improperly

discounted a February 2005 opinion of one treating physician that Kemnitz was not

able to work; and that the ALJ “changed the posture of the case” on remand by finding

that she never engaged in substantial gainful activity. Kemnitz v. Astrue, 2009 WL

1886652, at *1-2 (D.N.D. June 26, 2009). Kemnitz appeals, again raising the same

contentions. After careful review of the administrative record, we affirm for the

reasons stated in the thorough opinions of the magistrate judge and the district judge.

See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2779 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688638