Court Opinion

ID: 9383982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 16:00:47.377547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:49.334052
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eighth Circuit
                      ___________________________

                              No. 22-2843
                      ___________________________

                                 Heather Jordan

                      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: March 23, 2023
                            Filed: March 31, 2023
                                [Unpublished]
                                ____________

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

PER CURIAM.
      Heather Jordan appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of
supplemental security income. We agree with the district court that substantial
evidence in the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Bowers v.
Kijakazi, 40 F.4th 872, 874 (8th Cir. 2022) (standard of review).

       Specifically, we conclude that the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not err
in finding Jordan’s mental impairments non-severe. See Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d
549, 556-57 (8th Cir. 2011) (substantial evidence supported ALJ’s finding that
claimant’s mental impairments were non-severe, including psychologist’s opinion
that he had mild functional limitations and medical evidence showing normal
findings, infrequent complaints of symptoms, and little treatment). As the statement
from Jordan’s neurologist did not assess her functional limitations, it was not an
opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a) (defining medical opinions and other medical
evidence), and the ALJ was not required to evaluate it under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c
(ALJ must explain how supportability and consistency factors were considered in
evaluating medical opinions).

      We also find the residual functional capacity (RFC) determination was
supported by substantial evidence, including the objective medical evidence, the state
agency consultants’ opinions, and, to some extent, Jordan’s statements regarding her
symptoms and daily activities, see 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 statements); and the ALJ
properly considered the state agency consultants’ opinions, see Bowers, 40 F.4th at
875-76 (ALJ did not err in finding state agency consultants’ opinions persuasive;
while consultants did not examine claimant, ALJ properly found that their opinions

      1
       The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Edie R. Ervin, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.

                                         -2-
were more consistent with evidence of record). We find the ALJ did not err by failing
to order a consultative examination, as the record contained adequate evidence to
decide the issue of Jordan’s disability. See Sultan v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 857, 863 (8th
Cir. 2004) (ALJ may order consultative examination if available evidence does not
provide adequate basis for deciding disability claim).

       Finally, while Jordan argues that the Social Security Administration’s
regulations and policies are unconstitutional, she does not allege any facts explaining
how those issues caused the adverse ALJ decision in her case, or how a favorable
decision in her claim for benefits would redress these alleged constitutional
deficiencies. See Burks-Marshall v. Shalala, 7 F.3d 1346, 1349-50 (8th Cir. 1993)
(Social Security claimant lacked standing to raise due process issue where she had not
shown that alleged procedural deficiency had any factual connection to alleged
deprivation).

      The judgment is affirmed. We deny Jordan’s motion to supplement the record.
                      ______________________________

                                         -3-