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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 11 56

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ro be rt Th om as

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 Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J op li n

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 5, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Octo be r 11 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

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

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ro be rt Th om as ap pe al s t he di st ric t co ur t’s or de r up ho ld in g t he de ni al of h is 1

ap pl ic at io n fo r so ci al se cu rit y di sa bi li ty in su ran ce be ne fi ts (D IB ). H av ing j ur isd ic tion

un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

The Hon or ab le Mat t Je ffre y W hi two rth
, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r 1 th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, to who m th e cas e was refe rred fo r fin al di sp os it io n by con se nt of t he pa rti es pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (c).Tho m as ch al le ng es th e co nc lu si on th at on e of hi s m ed ic al ly de t e rm in ab le

im pa irments —d ep res si on —was no t se ve re. Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on th e reco rd as a who le su pp or ts th e ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge ’s fin di ng th at Tho m as ’s de pr es si on di d

no t si gn ifi can tl y li m it hi s ab il it y to do ba si c wor k act i v i t i e s

. Se e , e.g

. , Ki rb y v. Ast ru e , 50 0 F.3 d 70 5, 70 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (fi ve -s te p an al y si s fo r de te rm in in g whe th er cl ai m an t is di sa bl ed ; de no vo rev ie w of di st ric t c o ur t de ci si on ; de fere nc e to ad m in is tra ti ve fin di ng s; de fin it io n o f “ se ve re”)

.

Tho m as wor k e d fo r de cad es an d di d no t se ek tre at m en t un ti l se ve ral m on th s aft er he ap pl ie d fo r DIB. The reco rd do es no t su p p o r t h i s ex pl an at io n th at hi s
sym pt om s si gn ifi can tl y wor se ne d rece nt ly. Cf

. Gof f v. Bar nh ar t , 42 1 F.3 d 78 5, 79 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (in ferr in g im pa irment w a s n o t di sa bl in g fro m hi st or y of wor k an d ab se nc e of ev id en ce of m at eri al de te rio rat io n)

. The no te s fro m Tho m as ’s si x m on th s of th erap y co nt ai n no ob se rv at io ns of sym pt om s th at wou ld in te rfer e wit h ba si c wor k

act iv it ie s. The li m it at io ns Tho m as i de nt ifi es in hi s acco un t of hi s da y -to -d ay
act iv it ie s do no t pr ov e hi s de pr es si on ha s m or e th an a m in im al im pa ct on hi s ab il it y
to wor k. The re is no in di cat io n in th e reco rd th at Tho m as ’s sym pt om s in te rfer ed wit h

or s t o p p e d h i m fro m en ga gi ng in th e act iv it ie s th at tri gg ered th em , an d he di d no t ch arac te riz e th em as di sa bl in g whe n he ap pl ie d fo r DIB or whe n he te st ifi ed ab ou t hi s im pa irments be fo re th e ALJ. Cf

. Ki rb y , 50 0 F.3d at 70 8- 09 (u ph ol di ng fin di ng th at

m en ta l im pa irments were no t se ve re ba se d in pa rt on do ct or ’s op in io n th at “ whi le [th e cl ai m an t] m ay ha ve su ffer ed fro m de pr es si on , hi s cal cu la ti on , reca ll
, co m pr eh en si on ,
r e p et it io n, jud gm en t, an d be ha vi or were no rm al ” (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ); Dun ah oo v

. Apf el
, 24 1 F.3 d 10 33
, 10 39 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ The fact th at [a cl ai m an t] di d no t al le ge de pr es si on in he r ap pl ic at io n fo r di sa bi li ty be ne fit s is si gn ifi can t, ev en if th e ev id en ce of de pr es si on was l at er d ev el op ed .”).

The ALJ was no t req ui red to gi ve m or e weig ht to th e m ed ic al -s ou rce st at em en t fil ed by th e nu rs e pr act it io ne r who pr es cri be d Tho m as ’s med i c a t i on th an to th e

o p i ni on of th e do ct or who pe rfo rm ed Tho m as ’s ag en cy -o rd ered ex am in at io n. Th e few m in or de fic ie nc ie s th e nu rs e pr act it io ne r reco rd ed in he r no te s di d no t su pp or t th e

-2

-si gn ifi can t li m it at io ns sh e la te r in di cat ed in he r st at em en t. The ALJ was jus ti fie d in

ci ti ng th e te ns io n b et ween th e lo w “ gl ob al ass es sm en t o f fu nc ti on in g” (GAF) s co re Tho m as rece iv ed fro m a so ci al wor ke r an d th e so ci al wor ke r’s qu al it at iv e ob se rv at io n th at Tho m as fu nc ti on ed at a re l a t i v el y hi gh le ve l as a reas on to di sc ou nt th e sc or e. Se e No wl in g v. Co lv in , 81 3 F.3 d 11 10
, 11 23 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (“ GAF sc or es are of li tt le

va lu e.”).

Thi s co ur t fin ds it un ne ces sa ry to rev ie w th e ALJ’s de te rm in at io n th at Tho m as

was no t en ti rel y c r e di bl e, be cau se Tho m as ’s he ari ng te st im on y an d th e ALJ’s refe ren ces to hi s cred ib il it y fo cu se d on Tho m as ’s a l le ge d ph y si cal im pa irments
, whi ch are n ot at i ss ue in th is ap pe al

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-3

-