Case Name: Larry SIDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-15
Citations: 525 F. App'x 527
Docket Number: No. 13-1053
Parties: Larry SIDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 525
Pages: 527–528

Head Matter:
Larry SIDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-1053.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 5, 2013.
Filed: Aug. 15, 2013.
Anthony W. Bartels, Attorney, Jones-boro, AR, Eugene Gregory Wallace, Campbell University School of Law, RA-leigh, NC, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Stuart Lipke, Assistant Regional Counsel, Melinda Newman, Social Security Ad ministration Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, Stacey E. McCord, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants Appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Larry Sidler appeals the district court's order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Upon de novo review, see Van Vickle v. Astrue, 589 F.3d 825, 828 & n. 2 (8th Cir.2008), this court finds that the administrative law judge's (ALJ's) decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Specifically, this court concludes that, because the ALJ gave several valid reasons for his determination that Sidler was not entirely credible, the ALJ's credibility determination is entitled to deference, see Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1067 (8th Cir.2012); that the ALJ properly discounted the opinions of a consulting physician and several treating physicians as to Sidler's residual functional capacity (RFC), see id. at 1064 (treating physician's opinion does not automatically control); Charles v. Barnhart, 375 F.3d 777, 783 (8th Cir.2004) (generally when consulting physician examines claimant only once, his opinion is not considered substantial evidence); that Sidler failed to meet his burden of demonstrating his RFC, see Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir.2012); and that the ALJ's first hypothetical to the vocational expert (VE) accounted for all of Sidler's proven impairments, see Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549, 560-61 (8th Cir. 2011) (VE's testimony constitutes substantial evidence when it is based on hypotheti-caí that accounts for all of claimant's proven impairments; hypothetical must include impairments that ALJ finds substantially supported by record as a whole).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, 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).