Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01424/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01424-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
David A. Hicks
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1424

___________

David A. Hicks, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 28, 2008

Filed: February 12, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David A. Hicks appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Hicks alleged

disability from back and right-leg pain, and from numbness in his arms, hands, and

right leg. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that,

while the medical evidence established a herniated disc, bursitis, and chronic back

pain--which were severe impairments--the impairments alone or combined did not

Appellate Case: 07-1424 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2008 Entry ID: 3401659
-2-

meet or equal a listing; that Hicks’s subjective complaints were not fully credible; and

that although his residual functional capacity (RFC) for a wide range of light work

precluded his past relevant work, based on the testimony of a vocational expert, Hicks

could perform certain jobs and thus he was not disabled. After the Appeals Council

denied review, the district court affirmed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we

affirm. See Casey v. Astrue, 503 F.3d 687, 691 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review).

Contrary to Hicks’s assertions, the ALJ gave multiple valid reasons for his

credibility findings. See id. at 696 (ALJ’s credibility determination is entitled to

deference if based on good reasons). Further, we find substantial evidence in the

record for the ALJ’s decision to discount the RFC opinion of a spine specialist who

had assessed Hicks on two occasions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(6),

416.927(d)(2)-(6) (factors in determining weight to give treating physician’s opinion);

Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (ALJ may elect in certain

circumstances not to give controlling weight to treating physician’s opinion, as record

must be evaluated as whole; final RFC determination is left to ALJ). We also reject

Hick’s assertion that the record shows he meets or equals the requirements of Listing

1.04. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 1.04; Johnson v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d

1067, 1070 (8th Cir. 2004) (to meet burden of proof, claimant must present medical

findings equal in severity to all criteria of listing). Hicks’s remaining arguments

provide no basis for reversal and merit no discussion.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1424 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2008 Entry ID: 3401659