Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02221/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02221-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Lionel L. Hudson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2221

___________

Lionel L. Hudson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 15, 2005

Filed: July 6, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lionel L. Hudson appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the termination

of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income after a continuingdisability review. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Ellis v. Barnhart, 392

F.3d 988, 993 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review), we affirm. 

We reject Hudson’s challenge to the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s)

credibility determination, because the ALJ gave multiple valid reasons for finding

Appellate Case: 04-2221 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2005 Entry ID: 1924222
2

One of Hudson’s arguments is that the ALJ was bound, under administrative

res judicata, by the previous ALJ’s 1997 findings as to credibility and RFC.

Hudson’s appellate counsel has raised this very argument on behalf of other

claimants, and we have consistently rejected it. See Ply v. Massanari, 251 F.3d 777,

779 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Nielson v. Barnhart, 88 Fed. Appx. 145, 146-47 (8th

Cir. 2004) (unpublished per curiam). We thus find it troubling that counsel chose to

raise this same argument in the instant appeal. 

-2-

Hudson’s subjective complaints not credible. See Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d

798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005) (deference warranted where ALJ’s credibility determination

is supported by good reasons and substantial evidence). We also reject Hudson’s

assertion that the ALJ should have adopted the mental residual-functional-capacity

(RFC) findings of psychologist Vann Smith, who conducted a one-time evaluation

of Hudson. The ALJ gave good reasons for his resolution of the conflict between the

mental RFC opinion of Dr. Smith versus those of consulting psychologist Paul Iles

and the agency reviewing psychologists. See Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211,

1219 (8th Cir. 2001) (it is ALJ’s function to resolve conflicts among opinions of

various treating and examining physicians; ALJ may reject conclusions of any

medical expert if they are inconsistent with record as whole). Hudson’s remaining

arguments2

 provide no basis for reversal. 

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2221 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2005 Entry ID: 1924222