Court Opinion

ID: 9686673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:00:49.932562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:30.235940
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eighth Circuit
                      ___________________________

                              No. 22-3492
                      ___________________________

                                LaDonna Smith

                     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                        v.

        Kilolo Kijakazi, Commissioner, Social Security Administration

                     lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
                                    ____________

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

                          Submitted: June 1, 2023
                         Resubmitted: July 26, 2023
                          Filed: August 24, 2023
                              [Unpublished]
                              ____________

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

PER CURIAM.
       LaDonna Smith 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 Swarthout v. Kijakazi, 35 F.4th
608, 610 (8th Cir. 2022) (standard of review).

       Specifically, we find that the administrative law judge (ALJ) adequately
addressed the opinions of Smith’s treating and examining providers. See Nolen v.
Kijakazi, 61 F.4th 575, 577 (8th Cir. 2023) (ALJ adequately considered medical
opinion by addressing supportability and consistency factors); 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520c(c) (in evaluating persuasiveness of medical opinion, ALJ considers
supportability and consistency of opinion, and other factors). We find no merit to
Smith’s argument that the ALJ was required to defer to her treatment providers’
opinions in accordance with this court’s prior precedent regarding the treating-source
rule, because an intervening rule change abrogated that precedent. See Austin v.
Kijakazi, 52 F.4th 723, 730 (8th Cir. 2022) (under revised regulations, treating
physician rule no longer applies, rendering prior precedent applying that rule
inapposite). We also find no merit to Smith’s argument that the ALJ should have
included greater mental limitations in the residual functional capacity (RFC)
assessment, as substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination. See Krogmeier
v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019, 1024 (8th Cir. 2002) (substantial evidence supported
RFC determination based on medical records, consultant and other medical opinions,
and some aspects of claimant’s testimony).

      The judgment is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

      1
       The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas.

                                         -2-