Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02863/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02863-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
William J. Politt
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. 03-2863

___________

William J. Politt, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Arkansas

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 26, 2004

Filed: June 8, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Politt appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the Western District of Arkansas affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny

Politt’s application for supplemental security income benefits. For reversal, Politt

argues the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in not considering his impairments

in combination, in discounting his subjective complaints, in not developing the record

Appellate Case: 03-2863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2004 Entry ID: 1775086 
-2-

further as to his past relevant work (PRW) and mental impairments, and in

determining his residual functional capacity (RFC). For the reasons discussed below,

we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings. See

Roberts v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 466, 468 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). The ALJ

summarized the medical evidence and specifically determined that Politt’s

impairments--alone or combined--did not meet the listing-level requirements. See

Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994). In rejecting Politt’s subjective

complaints, the ALJ appropriately considered Politt’s daily activities, and noted that

medication had helped with Politt’s depression and anxiety and that Politt had failed

to seek medical treatment after May 2001. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th

Cir. 2000) (if adequately explained and supported, credibility findings are for ALJ to

make). The ALJ did not need to develop the record further as to Politt’s PRW once

the ALJ determined that Politt could not return to it, and the ALJ followed the proper

procedure in evaluating Politt’s mental impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920a

(2004). Finally, we have found nothing in the record to contradict the ALJ’s RFC

finding. 

Politt raises additional points in his brief. We find them to be meritless and

affirm without further discussion. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2004 Entry ID: 1775086