United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3759

___________

Gregory L. Walton, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 22, 2009

Filed: October 13, 2009

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gregory L. Walton appeals the district court's1

 order affirming the denial of

Walton's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security

income. Walton claimed disability with an onset date of April 1, 2005, due to back

pain/injuries. An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Walton could still

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the Report and Recommendations of

the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 
perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy based upon

a vocational expert's (VE's) response to a hypothetical question which took into

account Walton's restrictions and limitations, including his complete inability to stoop.

In the district court, Walton generally argued the ALJ's decision was not

supported by substantial evidence, and specifically argued the ALJ's decision should

be reversed because Social Security Regulation 96-9p states a "complete inability to

stoop . . . would usually [require] a finding that the individual is disabled." (Emphasis

added). Walton did not renew those two arguments on appeal, and they are therefore

deemed waived. See Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008). In

addition, we need not address the two new arguments2

 Walton raises on appeal

because they were not raised in the district court. See Misner v. Chater, 79 F.3d 745,

746 (8th Cir. 1996).

We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________

2

On appeal, Walton contends (1) the VE's opinions were inconsistent with the

Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and therefore required the ALJ to conduct

a supplemental hearing or submit additional interrogatories to the VE to clarify or

explain the conflict, and (2) the ALJ did not afford proper weight to the opinions of

a treating physician. Even were we to address these arguments, we would affirm

because (1) the record shows the VE clarified the conflicts between her testimony and

the DOT, and (2) the record supports the ALJ's declination to give the treating

physician's opinions controlling weight. See Pirtle v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 931, 933 (8th

Cir. 2007) (indicating a treating physician's opinion need not be given controlling

weight when there are inconsistencies between the physician's notes and his or her

residual functional capacity assessment); see also Thomas v. Sullivan, 928 F.2d 255,

259 (8th Cir. 1991) ("When the treating physician's opinion consists of nothing more

than conclusory statements, the opinion is not entitled to greater weight than any other

physician's opinion.").

-2-