Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03547/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03547-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
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 Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3547

___________

David G. Nasser, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Michael J. Astrue,1

 Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 4, 2007

Filed: September 18, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David G. Nasser appeals the district court’s2

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits. In Nasser’s February 2003 application, he alleged

disability since September 2001 from pain in various areas of his body. After two

Appellate Case: 06-3547 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2007 Entry ID: 3352774
-2-

hearings, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that, inter alia, Nasser’s

chronic groin and testicular discomfort, history of hernia operations, recurring

inguinal hernia, lumbosacral disc disease, and history of foot surgery constituted

severe impairments, but not of listing-level severity; his allegations as to his

limitations were not credible; and because his residual functional capacity (RFC) to

perform a full range of sedentary work did not preclude the performance of his past

relevant work, he was not disabled. 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 multiple valid reasons for discounting Nasser’s

subjective complaints, we defer to the ALJ’s credibility determination. See Leckenby

v. Astrue, 487 F.3d 626, 632 (8th Cir. 2007) (this court defers to ALJ’s credibility

determination when it is supported by good reasons and substantial evidence).

Further, we find that ALJ’s RFC findings are consistent with the medical evidence and

with Nasser’s testimony about his chronic pain, past work, and current activities. See

Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005) (disability claimant has burden

to establish RFC); Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004) (ALJ is

responsible for determining RFC, and in making determination should consider

medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own

description of his limitations). Finally, we decline to consider the arguments Nasser

raises for the first time on appeal. See Flynn v. Chater, 107 F.3d 617, 620 (8th Cir.

1997) (argument first raised on appeal need not be considered unless manifest

injustice would otherwise result). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

_________________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3547 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2007 Entry ID: 3352774