1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United Stat es District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2082

___________ Christina L. Rivers, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Southern v. * District of Iowa. * Michael J. Astrue, * [UNPUBLISHED] Commissioner of Social Security, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 1, 2010 Filed: March 9, 2010

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Christina L. Rivers appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Rivers’s ba ses for her disability application included seizures, posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiet y, sleep apnea, fibromyalgia, depression, and migraines. After a March 2006 heari ng, an administrativ e law judge (ALJ) determined that (1) Rivers met the insu red-status requirements through December 31, 2007; (2) her severe impairments--fibromya lgia, pseudoseizures, allergies, major-2- depression, anxiety, and pe rsonality disorder--did not, alone or combined, meet or medically equal the requirement s of any relevant listing; (3) her subjective complaints were not entirely credible; and (4) while her residual functional capacity (RFC) precluded her past relevant work, based on the testimony of a vocational expert in response to the ALJ’s hypothetical, there were certain other jobs existing in substantial numbers that Rivers could pe rform. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. Having conducted de novo revie w, we affirm. See McNamara v. Astrue , 590 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir. 2010) (affirmance is warranted where ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on record as whole even if inconsistent conclusions may be dr awn from evidence or reviewing court might have reached different outcome).
The ALJ’s credibility determination wa s based on multiple valid reasons--many of which Rivers does not challenge on appeal--and thus we defer to the ALJ’s assessment of Rivers’s credibility. See Juszczyk v. Astrue , 542 F.3d 626, 632 (8th Cir. 2008). We also find that the ALJ adequately explained his reasons for discounting the opinions of various trea ting physicians and other health care practitioners as to Rivers’s physical and mental RFC, see Hacker v. Barnhart , 459 F.3d 934, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (ALJ may electin certain circumstances not to give controlling weight to treating physician’s opi nion, as record mu st be evaluated as whole; for treating physician’s opinion to have controlling weight, it must be supported by medically acceptable diagnostic t echniques and not be inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record; physic ian’s own inconsistency may diminish or eliminate weight accorded to his opinion); and that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence, see Moore v. Astrue , 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009) (in determining RFC, ALJ must evaluate claimant’s credibility and take into account all relevant evidence, including medi cal records, and observations of treating physicians and others). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________