United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-2883

___________________________ 

Gayle Bentley

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

 Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Northern

____________ 

Submitted: February 14, 2023

Filed: June 7, 2023

[Unpublished] 

____________ 

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, STRAS and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________ 

PER CURIAM.

Gayle Bentley worked as an administrative assistant for 28 years. In 2015, 

she started experiencing unusual fatigue and progressively worsening pain, causing 

her to leave her job in February 2019. She sought social security benefits for 

disability, but was denied. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Bentley 

suffered from a variety of conditions but was not disabled because she could perform 

her past work—mostly computer work that involved very little standing or walking. 
-2- 

The ALJ specifically found the opinion of Bentley’s treating physician, Dr. Cullom, 

not persuasive. A magistrate judge1 affirmed the ALJ’s decision. We affirm. 

We review a decision affirming the denial of social security benefits de novo

and will affirm if the “denial of benefits complies with the relevant legal 

requirements and is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.” 

Cline v. Colvin, 771 F.3d 1098, 1102 (8th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). This 

threshold is not high, and only requires “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 

1148, 1154 (2019) (citation omitted). We view the record in the light most favorable 

to the ALJ’s determination, Chismarich v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 978, 980 (8th Cir. 

2018) (per curiam), and “defer heavily” to the Social Security Administration’s 

findings and conclusions, Hurd v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2010).

Bentley only appeals the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Cullom’s opinion was 

not persuasive. When considering medical opinions and prior administrative 

medical findings, ALJs no longer defer or give any specific evidentiary weight to an 

applicant’s medical sources, but instead evaluate their persuasiveness.

2

 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520c(a). An ALJ is required to consider the most important factors of the 

medical opinion: its supportability and consistency. Id. We address each in turn. 

Turning first to supportability, “[t]he more relevant the objective medical 

evidence and supporting explanations” are that support a medical opinion, the more 

persuasive it will be. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1). Here, the ALJ recognized there 

was little evidence offered in support of Dr. Cullom’s opinion. Additionally, Dr. 

1

The Honorable Patricia S. Harris, United States Magistrate Judge for the 

Eastern 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). 

2

This is the revised standard for evaluating opinion evidence, which applies 

to Bentley’s claim because it was filed after March 27, 2017. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520c (2021).
-3- 

Cullom did not explain how the small amount of medical evidence that was offered

resulted in the severe limitations that his opinion proffered. An ALJ can discredit 

conclusory opinions without “supporting objective evidence indicating how [the 

claimant’s] impairments interfere with the performance of job-related functions.” 

Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838, 844 (8th Cir. 2009) (finding that the ALJ properly 

disregarded a physician’s opinion that did not explain why or how the claimant’s 

condition prevented him from carrying out work-related tasks). All in all, the ALJ 

properly considered the supportability of Dr. Cullom’s opinion. 

We now turn to consistency. The more consistent a medical opinion is with 

evidence from other sources, the more persuasive it will be. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520c(c)(2). Here, the ALJ compared Dr. Cullom’s opinion with Bentley’s 

performance at the consultative examination performed by Dr. Hashmi,

3 and found 

that Dr. Cullom appeared to overstate Bentley’s limitations. 

Dr. Cullom’s opinion stated that Bentley’s maximum ability to stand and walk 

during an 8-hour day was less than 2 hours, only 3 minutes without a break, and that

her maximum ability to sit during an 8-hour day was less than 2 hours, only 20 

minutes without a break. It stated that she needed frequent rest periods, longer than 

normal breaks, and the opportunity to shift at will from sitting or standing/walking. 

His opinion also anticipated that Bentley’s condition would cause her to be absent 

from work more than three days a month. In comparison, the findings from Dr. 

Hashmi’s examination were mostly normal,4 with the exceptions of scoliosis of 

3

We note that the ALJ referenced the exhibit number of the consultative 

psychological exam that Bentley underwent. The district court assumed that the ALJ 

meant to reference the exhibit number of the consultative physical examination 

performed by Dr. Hashmi. We assume the same. The ALJ ultimately found Dr. 

Hashmi’s opinion not persuasive because his opinion did not set forth a residual 

functional capacity. But the ALJ was free to accept Dr. Hashmi’s exam findings and 

reject his ultimate opinion. See Austin v. Kijakazi, 52 F.4th 723, 729 (8th Cir. 2022).

4

For example, a normal range of motion for all extremities (with pain at the 

extremes of range of motion); 5/5 muscle strength; no muscle atrophy; an objective 
-4- 

Bentley’s lumbar spine and a positive straight leg test.

5

 All considered, these 

findings support the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Cullom’s opinion overstated 

Bentley’s limitations. 

Bentley also argues that the ALJ’s analysis was insufficient because he failed 

to compare Dr. Cullom’s opinion with other medical evidence in the record. But

“the ALJ is not required to explicitly reconcile every conflicting shred of medical 

evidence.” Austin v. Kijakazi, 52 F.4th 723, 729 (8th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). 

Rather, “[a]n ALJ’s reasoning need only be clear enough to allow for appropriate 

judicial review.” Grindley v. Kijakazi, 9 F.4th 622, 631 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation 

omitted); see also id. (“The ALJ’s brevity is not reversible error.”). 

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s analysis and ultimate determination 

that Dr. Cullom’s opinion was not persuasive. We affirm. 

______________________________

sensory examination within normal limits; normal posture and gait; 100% grip 

strength in both hands; ability to stand and walk without assistive devices; ability to 

walk on heels and toes; ability to squat/arise from a squatting position (but noting 

pain in lower back and knees); a normal x-ray of cervical spine; a normal x-ray of 

right knee (with mild joint space narrowing); and a normal x-ray of left knee. 

5

A positive straight leg test “evidences radicular irritation in the lumbosacral 

region by lower limb flexion” and is commonly used to identify impairment in disc 

anatomy or nerve root irritation. Gaston O. Camino Willhuber & Nicolas S. Piuzzi, 

Straight Leg Raise Test, StatPearls Publ’g (Feb. 5, 2023), 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539717/.