Case Name: Joshua Ray PUFFINBARGER, Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-30
Citations: 373 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 09-2574
Parties: Joshua Ray PUFFINBARGER, Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee.
Judges: Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
Joshua Ray PUFFINBARGER, Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee.
No. 09-2574.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2010.
Filed: April 30, 2010.
Mary K. Hoefer, Mears Law Office, Iowa City, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
John Paul Fox, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel Region VII, Kansas City, MO, Gary L. Hayward, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Des Moines, IA, Kristi Schmidt, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
. The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Joshua Ray Puffinbarger appeals the district court's order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Puffinbarger alleged disability from, among other things, arthritis, herniated discs in his neck and back, and carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that (1) Puffinbar-ger's combined impairments — degenerative disc disease, CTS, diabetes, hypertension, depression, personality disorder, and history of kidney stones and rotator-cuff injury — were severe, but did not meet or equal the requirements of any listing alone or combined; (2) his subjective complaints were not entirely credible; and (3) based on the testimony of a vocational expert, Puffinbarger's residual functional capacity (RFC) did not preclude his past relevant work as an inspector or security guard. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. After de novo review of the record, see Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838, 841-42 (8th Cir.2009) (standard of review), we affirm.
We reject Puffinbarger's challenges to the ALJ's credibility findings, as those findings were based on multiple valid reasons. See Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 933, 935-36 (8th Cir.2008) (where ALJ explicitly discredits claimant and gives good reasons for doing so, courts will normally defer to his judgment); see also Gowell v. Apfel, 242 F.3d 793, 796 (8th Cir.2001) (real issue is severity of claimant's pain). We also find that the ALJ's determination of Puffinbarger's physical RFC is supported by substantial evidence. See Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir.2009) (considerations in RFC determination); Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir.2005) (burden is on claimant to establish RFC).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.