# 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- 26 88

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ro dn ey McC ai n
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Caro lyn W . Col vi n, 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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - J on es bo ro

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

26 , 20 17 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 3, 2 01 7 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, ARNOLD, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Ro dn ey McC ai n ap pe al s th e di st r ic t co ur t’s or de r affi rm in g th e de ni al of 1 di sa bi li ty in su ran ce be ne fit s. W e ag ree wit h t h e d i st ric t co ur t th at su bs ta nt ia l

Th e H o n or ab le Je ro m e T. Kearn ey , Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, to who m th e cas e was refe rred fo r fin al di sp os it io n by
co ns en t o f th e p art ie s p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 6( c).ev id en ce on th e reco rd as a who le su pp or te d th e ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge ’s (ALJ’s)

de te rm in at io ns as to cred ib il it y an d res id ua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty (RFC ). See Harv ey

v. Co lv in , 83 9 F.3 d 71 4, 71 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (rev ie w i n g de no vo di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on , an d affi rm in g if Co mm is si on er’s de ci si on is su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce on reco rd as who le , in cl ud in g ne w ev id en ce co ns id ered by App eal s Co un ci l). Bec au se th e ALJ ga ve se ve ral va li d reas on s fo r f i n d i n g M r

. McC ai n’s

su bjec ti ve co m

pl ai nt s no t en ti rel y cred ib le , we fin d th at th e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n is en ti tl ed to de fere nc e. See Ju li n v. Co lv in , 82 6 F.3 d 10 82 , 10 86 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (if ALJ’s cred ib il it y d e t e r mina ti on is su pp or te d by go od reas on s an d su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce, th is co ur t wil l de fer to ALJ’s de te rm in at io n)

. As to th e RFC de te rm in at io n, it was su pp or te d by so m e m ed ic al ev id en ce, su ch as th e as se ss m en ts of a co ns ul ti ng ph y si ci an , an d al so th e RFC fin di n g s o f r ev ie win g ph y si ci an s, whi ch were le ss
res tri ct iv e th an th os e of th e ALJ. See Bo y d v. Co lv in , 83 1 F.3 d 10 15 , 10 20 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) ( i t is ALJ’s res po ns ib il it y to de te rm in e 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 tre at in g ph y si ci an s an d ot he rs , an d in di vi du al ’s own de sc rip ti on of hi s li m it at io ns ); Hen sl ey v. Co lv in , 82 9 F.3 d 92 6, 93 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (RFC is m ed ic al qu es ti on , an d m us t be su pp or te d by so m e m ed ic al ev id en c e of cl ai m an t’s ab il it y to fu nc ti on in wor kp la ce). Fu rth er, we ag ree wit h th e ALJ th at no tre at in g or ex am in in g ph y si ci an fo un d an y gr eat er li m it at io ns

. Acco r d i n g l y , th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t c o u r t is affi rm ed , a nd Mr. McC ai n’s m ot io n to su pp le m en t th e rec or d i s d en ie d.

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

-2

-