Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02153/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02153-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Jaeson Riggan
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas, 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. 05-2153

___________

Jaeson Riggan, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner * [UNPUBLISHED]

of Social Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2006

Filed: April 14, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jaeson Riggan appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. In his November

2001 applications, he alleged disability since April 1999 from chronic bronchitis and

low-back pain, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and

depression. After a May 2003 hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined

Appellate Case: 05-2153 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2006 Entry ID: 2032923
-2-

(1) Riggan’s bronchitis, with underlying asthma, and his back problem, were severe,

but not of listing-level severity, alone or combined; (2) his statements about his

impairments and their impact on his ability to work were generally credible but

supported a finding that he could perform a wide range of sedentary work; (3) his

residual functional capacity (RFC) precluded his past relevant work; and (4) based on

a vocational expert’s (VE’s) testimony, Riggan could perform other jobs existing in

substantial numbers regionally and nationally. The Appeals Council denied review,

and the district court affirmed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude

that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. See Draper v. Barnhart, 425

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

We reject Riggan’s argument about meeting a respiratory listing, because he has

not specified a respiratory listing he meets, nor has he linked the medical-record

entries he references to requirements for any of the nine respiratory listings. See

Vandenboom v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 745, 750 (8th Cir. 2005). We also reject Riggan’s

contentions that the ALJ’s credibility findings were based solely on the lack of

corroborating medical evidence, and that the ALJ ignored more recent medical records

supportive of his claims. Because the credibility findings are supported by multiple

valid reasons, they are entitled to deference. See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 791-

92 (8th Cir. 2005).

As to Riggan’s challenges to the RFC findings, the findings were based, as

required, on the medical records, the observations of treating physicians and others,

and Riggan’s own description of his limitations. See Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d

801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004). The RFC opinion by treating physician Bruce White, upon

which Riggan relies, could reasonably be interpreted as related to Riggan’s ability to

perform his past work; and more important, it is vague and conclusory. See Ellis v.

Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 994 (8th Cir. 2005) (medical-source opinion that applicant

is disabled or unable to work involves issue reserved for Commissioner and is not type

of medical opinion to which Commissioner gives controlling weight). As to Riggan’s

Appellate Case: 05-2153 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2006 Entry ID: 2032923
-3-

reliance on the records of Dr. Kimberly Agee, in June 1999 (when Riggan, by his own

reports to physicians, was still smoking) she noted that he had not been to work in

over a month, and that if his condition was purely an occupational disorder, she would

have expected improvement. This is not supportive of a finding that Riggan was

disabled from all work. The nonexertional limitations the ALJ included--avoidance

of moderate exposure to pulmonary irritants (e.g., dust, fumes)--were the only ones

supported by substantial evidence. And significantly, the ALJ discounted the RFC

opinions of Social Security Administration reviewing physicians, and tailored his RFC

findings for the most part to Riggan’s testimony. Because the ALJ’s RFC findings are

supported by substantial evidence, Riggan’s vague challenge to the hypothetical

necessarily fails as well. See Goff, 421 F.3d at 794 (hypothetical question is sufficient

if it sets forth impairments supported by substantial evidence in record and accepted

as true).

Riggan’s remaining arguments, which are undeveloped, provide no basis for

reversal. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2153 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2006 Entry ID: 2032923