Court Opinion

ID: 9392213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 16:01:56.207176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:04.605044
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eighth Circuit
                      ___________________________

                              No. 22-3315
                      ___________________________

                               Erica Michele Hart

                      lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                         v.

    Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

                     lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
                                    ____________

                   Appeal from United States District Court
               for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
                                ____________

                            Submitted: May 1, 2023
                              Filed: May 4, 2023
                                [Unpublished]
                                ____________

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

PER CURIAM.
      Erica Hart 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 Kraus v. Saul,
988 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review).

       Specifically, we find that the administrative law judge (ALJ) properly
evaluated Hart’s subjective complaints, and that substantial evidence supported the
ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) determination. See Despain v. Berryhill,
926 F.3d 1024, 1028-29 (8th Cir. 2019) (substantial evidence supported RFC finding
based on providers’ notes, medical consultants’ opinions, and claimant’s treatment);
Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 931 (8th Cir. 2010) (absence of objective medical
evidence to support subjective complaints is proper factor to consider); Guilliams v.
Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 802 (8th Cir. 2005) (evidence of effective treatment relieving
symptoms, and of failure to follow recommended treatment, diminishes credibility of
subjective complaints). We find no merit to Hart’s arguments that the ALJ was
required to identify specific jobs she could obtain when finding that she could do
other work, or that the ALJ and the district court were biased against her. See Liteky
v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (judicial rulings alone almost never
constitute valid basis for finding of bias); McMillian v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 215, 221
(8th Cir. 1983) (while Commissioner has burden of proving there is some other type
of substantial gainful employment that claimant can perform, Commissioner need not
find specific job opening for claimant). Contrary to Hart’s assertion, we note that the
Commissioner provided a complete transcript of the administrative record--including
the ALJ hearing--for the district court’s review, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

      The judgment is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western
District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent
of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

                                         -2-