Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01797/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01797-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

1

Judge John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of

Iowa, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 07-1797

________________

Lloyd Hamm, Sr.,

Appellant,

v.

Michael J. Astrue,

Social Security Administration,

Commissioner,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Western

District of Arkansas

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

 Submitted: January 16, 2008

 Filed: March 10, 2008

________________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MURPHY, Circuit Judge, and JARVEY, District Judge1

________________

JARVEY, District Judge.

Lloyd Hamm, Sr. appeals from the decision of the district court2

 affirming the

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance

benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. 

Appellate Case: 07-1797 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Entry ID: 3411005
-2-

This court reviews de novo a district court’s decision upholding the denial of

social security benefits. Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 577 (8th Cir. 2006). The

Commissioner’s decision must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence

in the record as a whole. Id. “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a

reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the commissioner’s conclusion.”

Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000). The whole record is

considered, “including evidence that supports as well as detracts from the

Commissioner’s decision, and we will not reverse simply because some evidence may

support the opposite conclusion.” Pelkey, 433 F.3d at 577. Further, this court will

defer to the ALJ’s credibility determinations as long as they are “supported by good

reasons and substantial evidence.” Id. (quoting Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798,

801 (8th Cir. 2005)). 

Hamm filed his initial application for Social Security disability benefits on

January 17, 1995. While that application was pending, Hamm filed a second

application for Social Security disability benefits on April 16, 2001, which was

granted in August of 2002. Therefore, this court’s review is limited to the

Commissioner’s finding that Hamm was not disabled as of January 17, 1995 through

April 16, 2001.

On appeal, Hamm argues the Commissioner’s decision regarding disability

prior to April of 2001 is not supported by substantial evidence in the record because

the hypothetical question posed by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to the

vocational expert did not accurately describe his limitations, particularly with respect

to his chronic depression. Hamm further argues that the ALJ improperly discounted

the opinions of Hamm’s treating and consulting physicians, as well as Hamm’s own

testimony. The court has considered the arguments of the parties and reviewed the

administrative record in this matter. For the reasons set forth in Judge Moody's

thorough opinion in the district court, we find that the Commissioner’s determination

Appellate Case: 07-1797 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Entry ID: 3411005
-3-

that Hamm was not disabled prior to April 16, 2001 is supported by substantial

evidence on the record as a whole. The decision of the district court is affirmed. See

8th CIR. R. 47B. 

 ______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1797 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Entry ID: 3411005