Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01648/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01648-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Bobby L. Box
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1648

___________

Bobby L. Box, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

* 

Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: May 4, 2006

Filed: May 12, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Box, who was born in 1958, sought disability insurance benefits

alleging he had been unable to work since May 2001 because he suffered from

Crohn’s disease, sleep apnea, depression, acid reflux, and a degenerative disc disease

affecting his lower back. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued

an adverse decision, in part based on a finding that Box retained the residual

functional capacity (RFC) to perform unskilled medium work, including some of his

Appellate Case: 05-1648 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2006 Entry ID: 2044258
1

The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern 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).

-2-

past jobs. After the Appeals Council denied review, the district court1

 upheld the

agency’s decision, and Box appeals. 

Following careful review, we agree with the district court that substantial

evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s decision. Contrary to Box’s

arguments, we conclude that the ALJ gave sufficient reasons to discount Box’s

subjective complaints, provided sufficient analysis in support of the ALJ’s conclusion

that Box retained the RFC to perform his past work, and made proper use of the

vocational expert’s hearing testimony in response to hypothetical questions. See Goff

v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 792-94 (8th Cir. 2005) (this court will not disturb decision

of ALJ who considers, but for good cause expressly discredits, claimant’s subjective

complaints; hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth impairments supported by

substantial evidence in record and accepted as true); Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d

801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004) (in determining RFC, ALJ must consider medical records,

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

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1648 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2006 Entry ID: 2044258