Court Opinion

ID: 9891378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 15:01:14.397375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.686943
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eighth Circuit
                      ___________________________

                              No. 23-1921
                      ___________________________

                                 Peggy Hopkins

                      lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                         v.

    Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

                     lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
                                    ____________

                   Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
                                 ____________

                         Submitted: October 13, 2023
                           Filed: October 18, 2023
                                [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.
              Peggy Hopkins appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of
disability insurance benefits. 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). We find no merit to Hopkins’s
argument that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by failing to include any
limitations related to her severe impairment of diverticulitis in the residual functional
capacity (RFC) finding, as the ALJ considered this impairment in determining that
she was limited to performing medium work with additional restrictions. See
Chismarich v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 978, 980 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (while
consistency is required between severity and RFC findings, these steps serve distinct
purposes, and this court’s deferential review precludes labeling findings inconsistent
if they can be harmonized; court may not pick nits nor accept appellant’s invitation
to rely upon perceived inconsistencies). We also find that the ALJ properly declined
to include an RFC limitation requiring frequent bathroom breaks, as he found
Hopkins’s testimony on that point was unsupported by the medical evidence. See
Schwandt v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1004, 1012 (8th Cir. 2019) (ALJ properly discounted
claimant’s testimony regarding medication side effects, as medical records did not
support that claim); Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082, 1089 (8th Cir. 2016) (ALJ
permissibly excluded greater limitations from RFC after determining that record was
not consistent with degree of symptoms alleged).

      The judgment is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

      1
       The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, 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).

                                          -2-