Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02958/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02958-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
John A. Carson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2958

___________

John A. Carson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

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

of Social Security Administration, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 6, 2006

Filed: October 19, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Carson appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of disability

insurance benefits. Following careful review, we conclude that substantial evidence

in the record as a whole, including hearing testimony of a vocational expert, supported

the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) finding that Carson, though unable to perform

Appellate Case: 05-2958 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2006 Entry ID: 2101040
-2-

his past relevant work as a hair stylist, was not disabled within the meaning of the

Social Security Act because he retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to

perform certain sedentary jobs which existed in significant numbers in the local and

national ecomony. See Dixon v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 602, 604-05 (8th Cir. 2003)

(standard of review; substantial evidence is evidence that reasonable person would

find adequate to support decision); Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790, 794 (8th Cir.

2005) (if claimant cannot perform past work, Commissioner must prove claimant

retains RFC to do other kinds of work existing in substantial numbers in national

economy; vocational expert’s testimony based on properly phrased hypothetical

question constitutes substantial evidence). In addition, the ALJ offered valid reasons

for discounting Carson’s subjective complaints of pain to the extent alleged, see Goff,

421 F.3d at 792 (this court will not disturb decision of ALJ who considers, but for

good cause expressly discredits, claimant’s complaints of disabling pain), and for

discounting physicians’ unsupported or inconsistent opinions about Carson’s inability

to work, see Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir. 2000) (treating

physician’s opinion, though normally entitled to great weight, does not automatically

control and may be discounted or disregarded where inconsistencies undermine

credibility of such opinion).

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2958 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2006 Entry ID: 2101040