Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01818/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01818-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Michael J. Astrue has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social

Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c).

2

The Honorable John T. Maughmer, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1818

___________

Robin A. Woodruff, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Michael J. Astrue1

, *

Commissioner of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2007

Filed: March 28, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robin A. Woodruff appeals the district court’s2

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits, and the denial of supplemental security income prior to

Appellate Case: 06-1818 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Entry ID: 3292731
-2-

July 9, 2003. In June 2001 Woodruff alleged disability since June 1999 from, inter

alia, bone spurs and deteriorating discs. At a 2003 hearing before an administrative

law judge (ALJ), Woodruff’s onset date was revised to January 2001. His date last

insured for purposes of disability insurance benefits was calculated to be December

2001. After the hearing, the ALJ determined (1) the medical evidence established that

Woodruff has severe degenerative joint disease and bone spurs, but his impairments

alone or combined were not of listing-level severity; (2) he was not entirely credible;

(3) his residual functional capacity (RFC) precluded his past relevant work, and he

had not acquired transferrable work skills; and (4) based on a vocational expert’s

opinion, there were a significant number of sedentary jobs he could perform. The ALJ

further found, however, that as of July 9, 2003, the medical-vocational guidelines

directed a finding of disabled, for purposes of supplemental security income, based

on Woodruff’s age, education, past work experience, and RFC. The Appeals Council

denied review, and the district court affirmed. Having carefully reviewed the record,

we affirm. See Gonzales v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of

review). 

Because the ALJ gave several valid reasons for finding Woodruff and his wife

not entirely credible, the ALJ’s credibility determination is entitled to deference. See

Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902, 907 (8th Cir. 2006). To the extent Woodruff is

challenging the ALJ’s RFC determination, we discern no basis for such a challenge.

See Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 803 (8th Cir. 2005) (RFC must be supported

by some medical evidence); Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004) (in

determining RFC, ALJ should consider medical records, observations of treating

physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of his limitations). Woodruff

cannot rely on the activity limitations and subjective complaints he was experiencing

in 2006 when he wrote his brief, and we decline to consider the new and largely

irrelevant evidence he has submitted on appeal, see Jones v. Callahan, 122 F.3d 1148,

1154 (8th Cir. 1997) (consideration of evidence outside record before Commissioner

is generally precluded; remand is warranted only upon showing that there is new and

Appellate Case: 06-1818 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Entry ID: 3292731
-3-

material evidence, and good cause exists for not incorporating it into administrative

record). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1818 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Entry ID: 3292731