Case Name: Robert K. BAKER Plaintiff-Appellant v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-08
Citations: 674 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 16-2025
Parties: Robert K. BAKER Plaintiff-Appellant v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Defendant-Appellee
Judges: Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 674
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
Robert K. BAKER Plaintiff-Appellant v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Defendant-Appellee
No. 16-2025
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: February 3, 2017
Filed: February 8, 2017
Frederick S. Spencer, Mountain Home, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Stuart G. Cox, Assistant Regional Counsel, Pamela Das Koehler, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Social Security Administration, Dallas, TX, Michael McGaughran, for Defendant-Appellee
Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert K. Baker appeals the district court's order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemen tal security income. We agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge's (ALJ's) determinations that Mr. Baker's borderline intellectual functioning/mild mental retardation did not meet the requirements of Listing 12.05C, and was not a severe impairment. See Igo v. Colvin, 839 F.3d 724, 728 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing de novo district court's affirmance, examining whether ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence on record as whole); Lott v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 546, 549-50 (8th Cir. 2014) (Listing 12.05C's requirements); McDade v. Astrue, 720 F.3d 994, 1001 (8th Cir. 2013) (claimant bears burden of establishing that his impairment meets all specified criteria of listing); Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707-08 (8th Cir. 2007) (claimant bears burden of showing impairment is severe, i.e., that it has more than minimal effect on his ability to work, at step two of the sequential evaluation process). We also agree with the district court that Social Security Ruling (SSR) 82-63 (Medical-Vocational Profiles Showing an Inability to Make an Adjustment to Other Work) does not apply in this .case. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western 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),