Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03673/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03673-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Barbara Gail Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, 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. 09-3673

___________

Barbara Gail Williams, also *

known as Barbara Gail Brice, *

also known as Barbara Gail *

Preston, also known as Barbara *

Gail Willis, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

Appellant, * District of Arkansas.

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 6, 2010

Filed: July 8, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Barbara Gail Williams appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial

of supplemental security income. Williams alleged disability from several conditions,

Appellate Case: 09-3673 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 Entry ID: 3681537
2

We specifically decline to consider the new issues Williams raises on appeal,

see Flynn v. Chater, 107 F.3d 617, 620 (8th Cir. 1997), or the new allegedly disabling

impairments she identifies.

-2-

including depression, bipolar disorder, asthma, comprehension problems, and pain in

her stomach, joints, feet, legs, and hands. After a hearing, an administrative law judge

(ALJ) determined that her history of depression with cocaine dependency in apparent

remission, tension/migraine headaches, cartilage damage with meniscal tears in the

knee, and mild disc bulges with lumbar spine degenerative changes were severe in

combination; (2) her impairments alone or combined did not, however, meet or equal

the requirements of any listing; (3) her subjective complaints were less than fully

credible; and (4) while her residual functional capacity (RFC) for less than the full

range of light work precluded her past relevant work, she could perform other jobs

that a vocational expert identified in response to a hypothetical. The Appeals Council

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

we also affirm. See Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825, 828 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2008)

(standard of review).

We reject Williams’s challenge to the ALJ’s adverse credibility findings,

because those findings were based on multiple valid reasons, see Finch v. Astrue, 547

F.3d 933, 935-36 (8th Cir. 2008); and we also reject her related challenge to the ALJ’s

RFC determination, which we find to be consistent with the record, see Davidson v.

Astrue, 578 F.3d 838, 844 (8th Cir. 2009) (ALJ should determine RFC based on all

relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and

others, and claimant’s own description of her limitations).2

 Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3673 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 Entry ID: 3681537