Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04404/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04404-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Linda S. McMahon has been appointed to serve as Acting Commissioner of

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

Procedure 43(c).

2

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4404

___________

Gregge S. Beiermann, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Linda S. McMahon,1

 Acting *

Commissioner, Social Security * [UNPUBLISHED]

Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 31, 2007

Filed: February 16, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gregge S. Beiermann appeals the district court’s2

 order affirming the denial of

supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. In Beiermann’s

Appellate Case: 05-4404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2007 Entry ID: 3279460
-2-

September 2001 applications and related documents, he alleged disability since early

2001 from, inter alia, atypical arthritis, a hearing impairment, fibromyalgia, fatigue,

and depression. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that

Beiermann’s severe medically determinable impairments were not of listing-level

severity, alone or combined; that Beiermann’s testimony about his limitations was not

entirely credible; and that while his residual functional capacity (RFC) precluded his

past relevant work, he could perform other jobs that a vocational expert identified in

response to a hypothetical. The Appeals Council denied review, the district court

affirmed, and Beiermann filed the instant appeal. 

Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Beiermann’s arguments

for reversal, we reject his challenges to the ALJ’s credibility and RFC findings, and

to the sufficiency of the hypothetical. See Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 936 (8th

Cir. 2006) (standard of review; ALJ’s task is to resolve credibility issues and

conflicting evidence); Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 807-09 (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; hypothetical

is sufficient if it sets forth impairments supported by substantial evidence and

accepted as true by ALJ). Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2007 Entry ID: 3279460