Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01735/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01735-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Sharron Rose Crews
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., 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. 05-1735

___________

Sharron Rose Crews, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Social Security Administration, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 30, 2006

Filed: June 5, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sharron Crews appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the Social Security

Commissioner’s decision to deny her application for supplemental security income at

step two of the sequential evaluation process. Following careful review, we conclude

substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the administrative law judge’s

(ALJ’s) conclusion, based in part on credibility findings, that Crews did not suffer

Appellate Case: 05-1735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2006 Entry ID: 2052024
-2-

from a severe physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments within

the meaning of the Social Security Act. See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 792 (8th

Cir. 2005) (this court will not disturb decision of ALJ who considers, but for good

cause expressly discredits, claimant’s subjective complaints); Dixon v. Barnhart, 353

F.3d 602, 604 (8th Cir. 2003) (substantial evidence is evidence that reasonable person

would find adequate to support decision); Nguyen v. Chater, 75 F.3d 429, 430-31 (8th

Cir. 1996) (sequential evaluation process may be terminated at step two only when

impairment or combination of impairments would have no more than minimal effect

on claimant’s ability to work; claimant bears burden of establishing she has severe

impairment that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work

activities). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2006 Entry ID: 2052024