Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02135/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02135-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Jimmy F. Means
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2135

___________

Jimmy F. Means, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of * Southern District of Iowa.

Social Security, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 29, 2005

Filed: May 4, 2005 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jimmy Means appeals from the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.

Following careful review, we agree with the district court that the administrative law

judge’s (ALJ’s) decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a

whole. See Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019, 1022 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of

review). Specifically, we believe that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity

Appellate Case: 04-2135 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2005 Entry ID: 1898930
-2-

determination is supported by the relevant evidence, including some medical

evidence, see Hutsell v. Massanari, 259 F.3d 707, 711–12 (8th Cir. 2001), and that

the ALJ did not make unfair determinations with regard to the weight of treating

physicians’ opinions, or Means’s credibility, see Shontos v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 418,

426 (8th Cir. 2003) (concerning weight to be accorded opinions of treating

physicians); Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (if adequately explained

and supported, credibility findings are for ALJ to make). Finally, the hypothetical

question posed to the vocational expert who testified at the hearing included the

limitations supported by the record and deemed credible by the ALJ, and the

vocational expert’s testimony that Means could perform his past relevant work

constitutes substantial evidence supporting the denial of benefits. See Hilkemeyer v.

Barnhart, 380 F.3d 441, 447 (8th Cir. 2004); Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 625

(8th Cir. 2001). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2135 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2005 Entry ID: 1898930