# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 44 69

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Kev in L. W ol fe

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Nan cy A. Berryhil l, Act in g C om m is si on er o f So ci al Secu rit y
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 26 , 20 17 Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 29 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Kev in L. W ol fe ap pe al s t h e d is tri ct co ur t’s or de r up ho ld in g th e de ni al of 1 di sa bi li ty in su ran ce be ne fit s. Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on

The Hon or ab le Ro na ld E. Lon gs ta ff, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa , no w ret ire d.a ffi rm in g th e de ni al of be ne fit s, ex am in in g whe th er th e ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge ’s

(ALJ) de ci si on is su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on th e reco rd as a who le

. See Ig o
v. Co lv in , 83 9 F.3 d 72 4, 72 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). W e fin d no m eri t to W ol fe’s ch al le ng es to th e ALJ’s cred ib il it y fin di ng s. See Ju li n v. Co lv in , 82 6 F.3 d 10 82 , 10 86 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (n ot in g th at cred ib il it y fin di ng s are ALJ’s pr ov in ce, an d , s o l o ng as th ey are
su pp or te d by “ go od reas on s and su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce,” th is co ur t wil l de fer to th os e fin di ng s (q uo ti ng Gui ll ia m s v. Barn ha rt, 39 3 F.3 d 79 8, 80 1 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ) ) )

. W e
a l s o fin d no m eri t to W ol fe’s ch al le ng es to th e ALJ’s de te rm in at io n of hi s m e n t a l

res id u a l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty (RFC ), be cau se th e ALJ’s reas on s fo r di sc ou nt in g th e op in io n o f W ol fe’s t reat in g p sychi at ris t were v al id , see Perk in s v . Ast ru e, 64 8 F .3d 89 2, 89 7– 99 (8 th C i r. 20 11 ) (h ol di ng th at tre at in g ph y si ci an ’s op in io n do es no t

au to m at ic al ly co nt ro l, as reco rd m us t be ev al ua te d as who le ; it is pe rm is si bl e fo r ALJ to di sc ou nt tre at in g ph y si ci an ’s op in io n th at is in co ns is te nt wit h hi s own no te s) ; an d th e m en ta l RFC de te rm in at io n was co ns is te nt wit h th e m ed i c a l e v i de nc e, se e Bo y d

v. C o l v in , 83 1 F.3 d 10 15 , 10 20 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at “ it is th e
res po ns ib il it y of th e ALJ, an d no t a ph y si ci an , to de te rm in e a cl ai m an t’s RFC” ba se d

on al l rel ev an t ev id en ce: m ed ic al reco rd s, ob se rv at io ns of tr e a t i n g ph y si ci an s an d ot he rs , an d cl ai m an t’s own de sc rip t i o n o f hi s li m it at io ns ); Hen sl ey v. Co lv in , 82 9 F.3 d 92 6, 93 1– 32 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (s ta ti ng t h a t th e cl ai m an t be ars th e bu rd en of de m on st rat in g R FC, wh ic h m us t b e su pp or te d by s om e m ed ic al ev id en ce, b ut th ere is no req ui rem en t th at fin di ng be su pp or te d by sp e c i f ic m ed ic al op in io n)

. The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-