Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02951/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02951-0/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 Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2951

___________

Charles C. Hunt, Jr., *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Michael J. Astrue,1

 Commissioner * [UNPUBLISHED]

of Social Security, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 14, 2007

Filed: September 20, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles C. Hunt, Jr., appeals the district court’s2

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits (DIB). Hunt applied for DIB and supplemental security

income (SSI) in May 2001, alleging disability from lumbosacral pain and a neck

Appellate Case: 06-2951 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2007 Entry ID: 3353700
-2-

problem. His date last insured for purposes of DIB was March 1993. His SSI

application was granted on initial consideration. Following two hearings, an

administrative law judge (ALJ) found that during the period relevant to the DIB

application (1) Hunt’s back condition was a severe impairment, but not of listing-level

severity; (2) his subjective complaints were not entirely credible; (3) he had the

residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work with a sit-stand option;

and (4) he could not perform his past relevant work, but based on the Medical

Vocational Guidelines and on testimony from a vocational expert (VE), he could

perform other jobs. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court

affirmed. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Hunt’s arguments, we

affirm. See Karlix v. Barnhart, 457 F.3d 742, 746 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of

review); Pyland v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 873, 876 (8th Cir. 1998) (to qualify for DIB,

claimant must establish existence of disability before expiration of insured status). 

Because the ALJ’s credibility determination was supported by good reasons and

substantial evidence, we conclude that it is entitled to deference. See Cox v. Barnhart,

471 F.3d 902, 907 (8th Cir. 2006). Contrary to Hunt’s suggestion on appeal, the

Veterans Administration’s June 2001 determination as to his disability status was not

binding on the Social Security Administration, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504, and the ALJ

was not required to discuss it because it was not relevant to the period at issue. Given

our conclusion that the ALJ’s credibility findings were entitled to deference, we also

find that the ALJ’s RFC findings and related hypothetical were supported by the

record. See 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). Finally, Hunt failed to rebut the presumption that the ALJ was unbiased. See

Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (quasi-judicial

administrative officers, such as ALJs, are presumed to be unbiased, but presumption

Appellate Case: 06-2951 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2007 Entry ID: 3353700
-3-

can be rebutted by showing conflict of interest or another specific reason to disqualify

ALJ). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

_______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2951 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/20/2007 Entry ID: 3353700