Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01721/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01721-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
James F. Manser
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1721

___________

James F. Manser, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Michael J. Astrue, *

Commissioner of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 5, 2010

Filed: February 25, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James F. Manser appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

supplemental security income. Manser claimed disability since April 2004 from, inter

alia, depression, anxiety, a social-anxiety disorder, hip and knee arthritis, and spinal

disorders. After two hearings, where Manser was represented by a layperson, an

administrative law judge (ALJ) found that (1) Manser’s severe impairments--cervical

and lumbar degenerative disc disease, major depressive and personality disorders, and

Appellate Case: 09-1721 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638162
-2-

anxiety--did not meet or medically equal the requirements of the relevant listings

alone or combined; (2) his other diagnosed conditions, including fibromyalgia, were

not severe impairments; (3) his subjective complaints were not entirely credible; and

(4) his residual functional capacity (RFC) precluded his past relevant work, but he

could perform other jobs that a vocational expert (VE) identified in response to a

hypothetical from the ALJ. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court

affirmed. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Manser’s arguments

for reversal, we affirm. See Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838, 841-42 (8th Cir. 2009)

(standard of review; if substantial evidence supports ALJ’s decision, reversal is not

warranted even if inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from evidence or court

would have decided case differently).

Because the ALJ gave multiple valid reasons for his credibility determination,

we defer to that determination. See Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 933, 935-36 (8th Cir.

2008). We also conclude that Manser failed to meet his burden of showing that his

fibromyalgia constituted a severe impairment. See Mittlestedt v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 847,

852 (8th Cir. 2000); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.908 (impairment must result from

anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which can be shown by

medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques).

As to the ALJ’s RFC findings, he properly discounted the opinions of certain

treating and consulting physicians and psychologists; and his RFC findings are

supported by substantial evidence. See Davidson, 578 F.3d at 844 (ALJ should

determine RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical records,

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

limitations); Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 709 (8th Cir. 2007) (opinion of consulting

physician is not entitled to special deference, especially when it is based largely on

claimant’s subjective complaints); Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 (8th Cir.

2006)(for treating physician’s opinion to be given controlling weight, it must be

supported by medically acceptable diagnostic tests and not be inconsistent with other

Appellate Case: 09-1721 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638162
-3-

substantial evidence in record; physician’s own inconsistency may diminish or

eliminate weight accorded to his opinion). Manser’s related challenge to the ALJ’s

hypothetical to the VE fails as well. See Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 804

(8th Cir. 2005) (proper hypothetical sets forth impairments supported by substantial

evidence and accepted as true by ALJ). Finally, the report Manser submitted for the

first time to the Appeals Council does not require reversal as we agree with the

Appeals Council that it was not material. See Bergmann v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 1065,

1069-70 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1721 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638162