Court Opinion

ID: 9955419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 16:00:54.941591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:41.658496
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 23-3220
                       ___________________________

                               Michael McKinney

                      lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                         v.

     Martin O’Malley,1 Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
                                     ____________

                   Appeal from United States District Court
                        for the District of Minnesota
                                ____________

                          Submitted: March 20, 2024
                            Filed: March 28, 2024
                                [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      1
       Martin O’Malley has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social
Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 43(c).
       Michael McKinney appeals the district court’s2 order affirming the denial of
supplemental security income. We agree with the court that substantial evidence in
the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Kraus v. Saul, 988 F.3d
1019, 1023-24 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). The administrative law judge
(ALJ) was not required to adopt the exact limitations set forth in the opinions she
found partially persuasive, and her residual functional capacity (RFC) determination
regarding McKinney’s abilities to interact with others was supported. See Webster
v. Kijakazi, 19 F.4th 715, 719 (5th Cir. 2021) (while ALJ did not adopt verbatim
opinion which limited claimant to minimal interaction with others, ALJ incorporated
limitation by limiting claimant to occasional public contact, and RFC assessment was
supported by substantial evidence); Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir.
2007) (RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence, including medical
evidence, state agency consultants’ opinions, and claimant’s subjective statements).
As the ALJ did not err in formulating the RFC assessment, she also did not err in
relying on the vocational expert’s (VE’s) testimony based on that assessment. See
Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 889 (8th Cir. 2006) (ALJ’s hypothetical question
to VE need only include limitations that ALJ finds are substantially supported by
record as whole).

      The judgment is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

      2
      The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

                                        -2-