Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03563/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03563-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable James C. England, 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. 05-3563

___________

William Henderson, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of *

Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 26, 2006

Filed: October 30, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Henderson, Jr., appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial

of supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Having carefully

reviewed the record, we affirm. See Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 577-78 (8th

Cir. 2006) (standard of review). In his September 2001 applications, Henderson

alleged disability since July 2001 from asthma, a heart condition, and allergies. After

Appellate Case: 05-3563 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2006 Entry ID: 2104547
-2-

a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that (1) Henderson’s

coronary artery disease, asthma, musculoskeletal chest pain, and history of

polysubstance abuse were severe impairments, but not of listing-level severity alone

or combined; (2) his testimony was not entirely credible; and (3) his residual

functional capacity (RFC) precluded his past relevant work, but did not preclude

sedentary unskilled jobs that a vocational expert had identified in response to a

hypothetical. 

Contrary to Henderson’s assertion on appeal, the ALJ gave multiple valid

reasons for his credibility determination. See Gregg v. Barnhart, 354 F.3d 710, 714

(8th Cir. 2003) (if ALJ explicitly discredits claimant and gives good reasons for doing

so, this court normally defers to credibility determination). We also reject

Henderson’s contention that the ALJ erred in not finding him disabled under Listing

3.03B, see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 3.03B (asthma with attacks), because

the record evidence shows his condition did not meet the listing, see Dunahoo v.

Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir 2001) (while it is preferable to have ALJ

explicitly state reasons why claimant failed to meet listing, conclusion must be upheld

if record supports it). Finally, we conclude Henderson’s challenge to the ALJ’s RFC

findings also fails. See 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). The medical

records support the ALJ’s determination that Henderson is capable of performing

sedentary work with a sit-stand option, and we note that Henderson offered no RFC

statement from a treating physician, although it was his burden to establish RFC. See

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

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3563 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2006 Entry ID: 2104547