Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03972/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03972-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Elise A. Oliver
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3972

___________

Elise A. Oliver, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner *

of the Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 6, 2006

Filed: September 11, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Elise A. Oliver appeals the district court’s1

 decision affirming the denial of

supplemental security income. After a September 2003 hearing, where Oliver was

counseled, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that her bipolar affective disorder,

alcohol dependence, personality disorder, obesity, and residual effects of an ankle

fracture were severe impairments, but not of listing-level severity; that her substance

abuse was not a contributing factor material to finding a disability; that her subjective

Appellate Case: 05-3972 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2006 Entry ID: 2087729
-2-

complaints were not fully credible; and that she could perform a range of light work.

The ALJ further determined that Oliver’s residual functional capacity (RFC)

precluded her past relevant work, but that her RFC did not preclude the performance

of jobs--available in significant numbers regionally and nationally--a vocational

expert identified. After careful review, we conclude that there is substantial evidence

in the record as a whole to support the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits

to Oliver. See Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 577-78 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of

review).

To the extent Oliver challenges the ALJ’s credibility determination, the

determination is entitled to deference. See Gregg v. Barnhart, 354 F.3d 710, 714 (8th

Cir. 2003) (if ALJ explicitly discredits claimant and gives good reasons for doing so,

this court normally defers to his credibility determination). We also reject Oliver’s

challenge to the ALJ’s mental RFC findings, because they were consistent with

Oliver’s reports to her two main treating physicians and to a Medicaid-clinic doctor

that her prescribed medications were controlling her manic and depressive episodes;

they were consistent with a consulting psychologist’s opinion as to the type of work

Oliver could perform even when she was abusing alcohol; they were even more

restrictive than the findings of a Social Security Administration reviewing

psychologist; and Oliver was properly discredited. See Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d

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

observations of treating physician and others, and claimant’s own description of her

limitations). We also conclude that the ALJ properly discounted in part the mental

RFC opinion of treating psychiatrist Floyd Simpson as inconsistent with the record

as a whole. See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005) (treating

physician’s opinion does not automatically control because record must be evaluated

as whole).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3972 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2006 Entry ID: 2087729