Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01943/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01943-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Walter Chapman
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, 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. 04-1943

___________

Walter Chapman, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 22, 2004

Filed: August 5, 2004 

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Walter Chapman appeals the district court’s1

 decision upholding the

Commissioner’s denial of his applications for supplemental security income (“SSI”).

Having carefully reviewed the record, see Sampson v. Apfel, 165 F.3d 616, 618 (8th

Cir. 1999) (standard of review), we affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-1943 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796242 
-2-

In February of 1992, Chapman filed a successful application for SSI, alleging

disability by virtue of his alcoholism. Following this award of payments, however,

Congress amended the Social Security Act to eliminate drug and alcohol addiction

as a basis upon which to receive disability insurance benefits and SSI. See Newton

v. Chater, 92 F.3d 688, 695 n.3 (8th Cir. 1996) (discussing the impact of the Contract

with America Advancement Act of 1996). In June of 1996, the Social Security

Administration notified Chapman of this change in law, and further stated that his SSI

would cease effective January 1, 1997. Chapman appealed this decision and

requested a hearing in order to establish that he was disabled without regard for his

alcohol addiction. 

While his original 1992 application for SSI underwent administrative reevaluation and review, Chapman filed a second application for SSI in April of 2000.

In this application, he alleged disability due to a panoply of psychological and

physical impairments, including anxiety, depression, pseudogout, and

chondrocalcinosis. Both of Chapman’s applications eventually reached the same

level in the administrative review process, and were thereby “consolidated” for

consideration by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). Following a hearing, the ALJ

concluded that Chapman was not disabled at step five of the Commissioner’s fivestep sequential evaluation process, insofar as he retained the residual functional

capacity to perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 404.1560(c).

Chapman identifies several perceived errors in the ALJ’s analysis, including

the use of a hypothetical question that did not accurately reflect his limitations of

function, the failure to accord proper weight to the opinions of his treating physicians,

and the refusal to fully credit his subjective allegations of pain. Our review of the

record and applicable legal authorities convinces us that the result of the ALJ, as well

as the reasoning employed therein, was proper. The district court’s analysis in

Appellate Case: 04-1943 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796242 
-3-

reaching this same conclusion was cogent and thorough; further elaboration by this

court would serve little purpose.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1943 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796242