Case Name: Nancy BARTON, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-06
Citations: 76 F. App'x 758
Docket Number: No. 03-1640
Parties: Nancy BARTON, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 76
Pages: 758–759

Head Matter:
Nancy BARTON, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee.
No. 03-1640.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 11, 2003.
Decided Oct. 6, 2003.
Before MELLOY, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Nancy Barton sought supplemental security income (SSI) benefits asserting she was disabled beginning January 1,1989, by arthritis, degenerative disc disease, anxiety with panic attacks, and severe neck, back, and hip pain. An administrative law judge (ALJ) decided Barton was not disabled because she had the residual functional capacity to perform a significant range of light work and there were a significant number of jobs in the national economy she could perform. While Barton's case was pending before the Appeals Council, she filed a new application for benefits and another ALJ found Barton was disabled beginning March 8, 2000. The Appeals Council in the earlier action found the later claim reflected a deterioration in Barton's mental condition and concluded substantial evidence supported the earlier ALJ's decision to deny benefits beginning January 1, 1989. Barton sought judicial review, and the district court affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits based on a magistrate judge's fifty-page report and recommendation.
On appeal, Barton contends the ALJ improperly assessed her residual functional capacity because he failed to provide medical grounds for his decision, faded to incorporate Barton's mental limitations, and posed an incomplete hypothetical question. Barton also contends the ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of her treating psychiatrist. Having carefully reviewed Barton's contentions, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision to deny benefits. Because we have nothing to add to the magistrate judge's analysis as amended by the district court, we affirm without additional discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.