Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01554/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01554-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
James Kenneth Tegeler
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1554

___________

James Kenneth Tegeler, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: August 6, 2010

 Filed: August 17, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Kenneth Tegeler appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial

of disability insurance benefits. Tegeler alleged disability since October 2005 from

a seizure disorder. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ)

determined that (1) Tegeler’s seizure disorder was a severe impairment, but did not

Appellate Case: 10-1554 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2010 Entry ID: 3693958
2

We decline to address those arguments that are irrelevant, entirely new, or

undeveloped. 

-2-

meet or medically equal the requirements of any relevant listing; (2) his anxiety was

not a severe impairment; (3) his testimony was not entirely credible; (4) as to his

residual functional capacity (RFC), he had no physical limitations and his only

nonexertional limitations were typical seizure precautions; and (5) while a vocational

expert (VE) testified that Tegeler’s RFC precluded his past relevant work, in response

to the ALJ’s hypothetical the VE identified other jobs Tegeler could perform. The

Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. Having carefully

reviewed the record and considered Tegeler’s arguments for reversal,2

 see Dipple v.

Astrue, 601 F.3d 833, 836 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review), we affirm.

Specifically, we find that the ALJ’s credibility determination is entitled to

deference as it was based on several valid reasons, see Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d

922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010); and that the ALJ properly relied on the VE’s response to a

hypothetical, see Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 808-09 (8th Cir. 2004). We also

find that the evidence Tegeler offered for the first time on appeal did not meet the

requirements for remand. See Hepp v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 798, 808 (8th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-1554 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2010 Entry ID: 3693958