Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03622/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03622-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Kimberly McMurray
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert E. Larsen, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, 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. 09-3622

___________

Kimberly McMurray, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Michael J. Astrue, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 7, 2010

Filed: May 20, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kimberly McMurray appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. McMurray alleged

disability since June 25, 2004, from chronic back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS),

de Quervian’s disease, and depression. After a hearing, an administrative law judge

(ALJ) found, as relevant, that (1) McMurray’s severe impairments--lumbar

degenerative disc disease, and tendonitis/arthritis of the wrists with a history of CTS--

Appellate Case: 09-3622 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Entry ID: 3666552
-2-

did not, alone or combined, meet or medically equal the requirements of any listing;

(2) her depression and bronchitis were not severe impairments; (3) her subjective

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

(RFC) for less than a full range of light work precluded her past relevant work, based

on the testimony of a vocational expert (VE) in response to a hypothetical, McMurray

could perform certain light unskilled jobs existing in substantial numbers. The

Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. Upon de novo review,

see Tilley v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 675, 679 (8th Cir. 2009), we agree with the district

court that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.

Specifically, we find no merit to McMurray’s challenges to the ALJ’s

credibility findings. The ALJ was not required to discuss the written statements of

McMurray’s children, see Craig v. Apfel, 212 F.3d 433, 436 (8th Cir. 2000) (failure

to cite specific evidence does not mean it was not considered); and in any event, these

statements were not entirely consistent with McMurray’s own contemporaneous

statements and testimony as to how much assistance she needed with daily activities,

see Roberson v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 1020, 1025 (8th Cir. 2007) (ALJ may discount

subjective complaints if there are inconsistencies in record as whole). The ALJ gave

several valid reasons for discounting McMurray’s credibility, including lack of

objective medical evidence supporting the alleged disability, lack of opinions from

physicians about McMurray’s inability to work at any job, and the suggestion by some

medical professionals that McMurray was magnifying her symptoms. See Juszczyk

v. Astrue, 542 F.3d 626, 631-32 (8th Cir. 2008) (deferring to ALJ’s well-supported

determination that claimant’s testimony was not credible).

We further find that the ALJ properly discounted the RFC opinion of

McMurray’s treating physician Malcolm Oliver, see Juszczyk, 542 F.3d at 632; and

that the ALJ’s hypothetical to the VE was sufficient, given that it set forth the

impairments supported by substantial evidence in the record and accepted as true by

Appellate Case: 09-3622 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Entry ID: 3666552
-3-

the ALJ, see Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 808-09 (8th Cir. 2004). Accordingly,

we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3622 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Entry ID: 3666552