Case Name: Sheila A. GRIND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commission of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-19
Citations: 576 F. App'x 642
Docket Number: No. 13-3760
Parties: Sheila A. GRIND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commission of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 576
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
Sheila A. GRIND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commission of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-3760.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 14, 2014.
Filed: Aug. 19, 2014.
David R. Trussell, Nussbaum & Hendrix, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Stuart Lipke, Assistant Regional Counsel, Michael McGaughran, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, Stacey E. McCord, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sheila A. Grind appeals the district court's order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Because the admin istrative law judge's (ALJ's) opinion is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, we affirm. See Hill v. Colvin, 753 F.3d 798, 800 (8th Cir.2014) (de novo review). We defer to the ALJ's determination that Grind's subjective complaints were not fully credible, as it was supported by several valid reasons, see Turpin v. Colvin, 750 F.3d 989, 993 (8th Cir.2014); and we find no merit to Grind's assertion that the ALJ's determination of her residual functional capacity (RFC) did not adequately account for her knee arthritis and obesity. See Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir.2013) (RFC must be determined based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant's own description of her limitations; RFC must be supported by some medical evidence); see also Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir.2012) (burden of persuasion to demonstrate RFC and prove disability remains on claimant). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).