Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02082/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02082-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Christina L. Rivers
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2082

___________

Christina L. Rivers, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Michael J. Astrue, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

Commissioner of Social Security, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 1, 2010

Filed: March 9, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christina L. Rivers appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits. Rivers’s bases for her disability application included

seizures, posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, sleep apnea, fibromyalgia, depression,

and migraines. After a March 2006 hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ)

determined that (1) Rivers met the insured-status requirements through December 31,

2007; (2) her severe impairments--fibromyalgia, pseudoseizures, allergies, major

Appellate Case: 09-2082 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2010 Entry ID: 3642235
-2-

depression, anxiety, and personality disorder--did not, alone or combined, meet or

medically equal the requirements of any relevant listing; (3) her subjective complaints

were not entirely credible; and (4) while her residual functional capacity (RFC)

precluded her past relevant work, based on the testimony of a vocational expert in

response to the ALJ’s hypothetical, there were certain other jobs existing in

substantial numbers that Rivers could perform. The Appeals Council denied review,

and the district court affirmed. Having conducted de novo review, we affirm. See

McNamara v. Astrue, 590 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir. 2010) (affirmance is warranted

where ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on record as whole even

if inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from evidence or reviewing court might

have reached different outcome).

The ALJ’s credibility determination was based on multiple valid reasons--many

of which Rivers does not challenge on appeal--and thus we defer to the ALJ’s

assessment of Rivers’s credibility. See Juszczyk v. Astrue, 542 F.3d 626, 632 (8th

Cir. 2008). We also find that the ALJ adequately explained his reasons for

discounting the opinions of various treating physicians and other health care

practitioners as to Rivers’s physical and mental RFC, see 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; for treating physician’s opinion to have controlling weight, it must be

supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not be inconsistent with

other substantial evidence of record; physician’s own inconsistency may diminish or

eliminate weight accorded to his opinion); and that the ALJ’s RFC determination is

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

2009) (in determining RFC, ALJ must evaluate claimant’s credibility and take into

account all relevant evidence, including medical records, and observations of treating

physicians and others). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2082 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2010 Entry ID: 3642235