Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03247/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03247-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Gary L. Corum
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3247

___________

Gary L. Corum, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Social Security, *

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2004

Filed: May 25, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gary L. Corum applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and

Supplemental Security Income payments, claiming the onset of disability in April

1999 because of the residual effects of testicular cancer and its treatment, pancreatitis,

abdominal and testicular pain, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, fatigue, and depression.

After a hearing, the Commissioner’s administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the

application, finding that Corum is a younger individual who suffers from a

combination of impairments that are considered severe but do not equal a listed

impairment; that he is unable to perform his past relevant work; that his “allegations

Appellate Case: 03-3247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2004 Entry ID: 1770475 
1

The HONORABLE NANETTE K. LAUGHREY, United States District Judge

for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

regarding his limitations are not credible;” and that he has transferable work skills

and the residual functional capacity to perform a significant range of light work.

After the Appeals Council denied Corum’s request for further administrative

review, he commenced this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s

final decision. The district court1

 granted summary judgment in favor of the

Commissioner, concluding that the agency’s final decision is supported by substantial

evidence on the administrative record as a whole. Corum appeals, arguing that the

ALJ erred in discounting a residual functional capacity assessment by Corum’s

treating physician as inconsistent with the physician’s treatment records and the other

medical evidence, and that the ALJ erred in discounting Corum’s complaints of

disabling pain and fatigue and therefore failed to include all relevant impairments in

posing hypothetical questions to the vocational expert who testified at the

administrative hearing. The district court’s thorough opinion addressed each of these

issues. After thorough review of the record, we affirm for the reasons stated in the

district court’s Order dated July 29, 2003. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2004 Entry ID: 1770475