Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03793/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03793-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Thomas C. Mummert, III, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3793

___________

Kimberly Poller, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 26, 2006

Filed: October 31, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kimberly Poller appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon careful review,

we conclude that substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s)

decision that Poller is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. See

Appellate Case: 05-3793 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2006 Entry ID: 2105157
-2-

Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 993 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). After

ordering consultative neurological and psychological examinations and eliciting

testimony from a vocational expert, the ALJ found that Poller retains the residual

functional capacity to perform a wide range of light work and the full range of

sedentary work. Poller has not shown prejudice from the ALJ’s failure to further

develop the record, see id. at 994 (to remand for additional evidence, claimant must

establish that ALJ’s failure to fully develop record resulted in prejudice), and the ALJ

gave good reasons for discrediting Poller’s complaints of disabling pain, see Goff v.

Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 792 (8th Cir. 2005) (this court will not disturb decision of

ALJ who considers, but for good cause expressly discredits, claimaint’s complaints

of disabling pain). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3793 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2006 Entry ID: 2105157