Case Name: Katheryne POLTER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-15
Citations: 496 F. App'x 698
Docket Number: No. 12-2214
Parties: Katheryne POLTER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 496
Pages: 698–699

Head Matter:
Katheryne POLTER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-2214.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 4, 2013.
Filed: Jan. 15, 2013.
Jeffrey S. Ciegel, Kathleen Overton, Parmele Law Firm, Liberty, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Nicholas P. Llewellyn, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, Kristi Schmidt, Deputy, Chief Counsel, Robert Michael Smith, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region VII, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
Before BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Katheryne Polter appeals the district court's order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, see Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1063-64 (8th Cir.2012), we find no basis for reversal. Specifically, we find no merit to Polter's challenges to the administrative law judge's (ALJ's) determinations as to physical and mental residual functional capacity (RFC), see Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 794 (8th Cir.2012) (conclusory checkbox form has little evidentiary value when it provides little or no elaboration and cites no medical evidence); Renstrom, 680 F.3d at 1064 (treating physician's opinion does not automatically control); or to the ALJ's hypothetical to the vocational expert, see Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 901-02 (8th Cir.2011) (hypothetical must capture concrete consequences of claimant's deficiencies); cf. Davis v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 962, 966 (8th Cir.2001) (rejecting contention that hypothetical was flawed because it did not specify frequency of need to alternate between sitting and standing, where hypothetical addressed claimant's need to sit and stand "at will"). The district court is affirmed.
. The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.