Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02621/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02621-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Wilma F. Bankston
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H.

David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2621

___________

Wilma F. Bankston, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Social Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 19, 2010

Filed: March 26, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Wilma F. Bankston appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits. Bankston alleged disability from anxiety, depression,

diabetes, arthritis, headaches, a seizure disorder, and short-term memory loss. After

a hearing, an administrative law judge determined that Bankston’s severe

impairments--major depression, Type II diabetes with neuropathy, arthritis, and

Appellate Case: 09-2621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2010 Entry ID: 3648736
-2-

obesity--did not meet or equal the requirements of any listing, alone or combined, and

that her subjective complaints were not entirely credible. The ALJ concluded further,

relying on the testimony of a vocational expert and using the Medical Vocational

Guidelines as a framework, that even though Bankston’s residual functional capacity

precluded her past relevant work, she could perform other jobs existing in significant

numbers. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. Having

conducted careful de novo review of the record and the parties’ submissions on

appeal, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence on the record as a

whole supports the denial of benefits. See Tilley v Astrue, 580 F.3d 675, 679 (8th Cir.

2009) (standard of review). We reject without further discussion the arguments in

Bankston’s counseled brief, because they are unsupported by the record, are legally

unsupported, or are not sufficiently developed.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2621 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2010 Entry ID: 3648736