Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02574/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02574-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010. 

2

The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2574

___________

Joshua Ray Puffinbarger, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of *

Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 24, 2010

Filed: April 30, 2010

___________

Before RILEY,1

 Chief Judge, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Ray Puffinbarger appeals the district court’s2

 order affirming the denial

of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Puffinbarger

alleged disability from, among other things, arthritis, herniated discs in his neck and

back, and carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). After a hearing, an administrative law judge

Appellate Case: 09-2574 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2010 Entry ID: 3660168
-2-

(ALJ) determined that (1) Puffinbarger’s combined impairments--degenerative disc

disease, CTS, diabetes, hypertension, depression, personality disorder, and history of

kidney stones and rotator-cuff injury--were severe, but did not meet or equal the

requirements of any listing alone or combined; (2) his subjective complaints were not

entirely credible; and (3) based on the testimony of a vocational expert, Puffinbarger’s

residual functional capacity (RFC) did not preclude his past relevant work as an

inspector or security guard. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court

affirmed. After de novo review of the record, see Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838,

841-42 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review), we affirm.

We reject Puffinbarger’s challenges to the ALJ’s credibility findings, as those

findings were based on multiple valid reasons. See Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 933,

935-36 (8th Cir. 2008) (where ALJ explicitly discredits claimant and gives good

reasons for doing so, courts will normally defer to his judgment); see also Gowell v.

Apfel, 242 F.3d 793, 796 (8th Cir. 2001) (real issue is severity of claimant’s pain).

We also find that the ALJ’s determination of Puffinbarger’s physical RFC is

supported by substantial evidence. See Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir.

2009) (considerations in RFC determination); Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790

(8th Cir. 2005) (burden is on claimant to establish RFC).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2574 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2010 Entry ID: 3660168