Court Opinion

ID: 9927217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 16:01:20.046927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:09.499392
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1432
                        ___________________________

                                   Jason Lane

                                     Plaintiff - Appellant

                                        v.

      Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

                                    Defendant - Appellee
                                 ____________

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

                          Submitted: October 18, 2023
                            Filed: January 26, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Jason Lane applied for disability benefits due to anxiety and depression. An
ALJ found that he was not disabled, so the Commissioner denied his application.
The district court 1 upheld the denial of benefits, and Lane appeals.

      1
        The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
      We review the district court’s decision de novo, and we will affirm if the
ALJ’s determination “complies with the relevant legal standards and is supported by
substantial evidence in the record as a whole.” Lucus v. Saul, 960 F.3d 1066, 1068
(8th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).

       The ALJ found that Lane could “respond appropriately to occasional
interaction with supervisors and co-workers but should have no team or tandem work
with co-workers and no interaction with the general public.” A vocational expert
concluded that someone with these limitations could still find work, which meant
Lane was not disabled under the Social Security Act, see 42 U.S.C.
§ 1382c(a)(3)(B).

       Lane argues that the ALJ’s reference to “occasional” interactions is
inconsistent with the shared opinion of two psychologists, which the ALJ found
persuasive, that he could have “superficial” interactions. He reasons that because
the terms are different—the former being about quantity and the latter about
quality—omitting the psychologists’ limitation renders the expert’s conclusion
unreliable and the ALJ’s decision without substantial evidence.

       We reject this manufactured inconsistency. The psychologists noted that Lane
could relate to others superficially, work in small groups, and maintain at least
minimal relationships with others. Nothing in the reference to “occasional”
interactions conflicts with that opinion. And the ALJ, considering the entire record,
addressed the quality of Lane’s workplace interactions: no team, tandem, or public-
facing work. We decline to nitpick its well-reasoned decision. Chismarich v.
Berryhill, 888 F.3d 978, 980 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam).

      We affirm the district court’s judgment.
                      ______________________________

                                        -2-