Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02189/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02189-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
James C. Davis
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2189

___________

James C. Davis, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner *

of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 5, 2006

Filed: April 10, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James C. Davis appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

supplemental security income. Davis alleged disability since March 2002 from, inter

alia, heart problems and arthritis-related pain. After a hearing, an administrative law

judge (ALJ) found that Davis’s discogenic and degenerative back problems, history

of arthritis, and alcoholism imposed more than slight limitations upon his ability to

function, but his impairments alone or combined were not of listing-level severity; that

Appellate Case: 05-2189 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2006 Entry ID: 2030706
-2-

his testimony was not entirely credible; and that, while his residual functional capacity

(RFC) precluded his past relevant work, he could perform jobs identified by a

vocational expert (VE) in response to a hypothetical. Having carefully reviewed the

record, we find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. See Draper v.

Barnhart, 425 F.3d 1127, 1130 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). 

First, we reject Davis’s challenge to the ALJ’s credibility findings, because the

ALJ gave multiple valid reasons for finding Davis’s subjective complaints not entirely

credible. See Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 578 (8th Cir. 2006) (deference to

ALJ’s credibility findings is warranted so long as they are supported by good reasons

and substantial evidence). Second, as to the hypothetical and the RFC determination

upon which it was based, the ALJ properly considered the medical records,

observations of treating physicians and others, and Davis’s own description of his

limitations, see Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004) (RFC

determination), and we find substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination;

and the hypothetical was sufficient because it included only those limitations the ALJ

found credible, see Randolph v. Barnhart, 386 F.3d 835, 841 n.9 (8th Cir. 2004).

Davis also raises some issues for the first time on appeal, but we decline to entertain

them. See Misner v. Chater, 79 F.3d 745, 746 (8th Cir. 1996) (argument raised for

first time on appeal need not be considered unless claimant can show manifest

injustice would otherwise result). 

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2189 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2006 Entry ID: 2030706