Court Opinion

ID: 9890087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 15:01:20.366741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.249860
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1559
                         ___________________________

                                       John Wyatt

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                            v.

     Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

                        lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
                                       ____________

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

                             Submitted: October 6, 2023
                              Filed: October 12, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      John Wyatt appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disability
insurance benefits. We agree with the court that substantial evidence in the record

      1
      The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
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 that the administrative law judge (ALJ)
did not err in declining to include more restrictive limitations regarding interactions
with coworkers and supervisors in Wyatt’s residual functional capacity (RFC)
determination. See Swink v. Saul, 931 F.3d 765, 770 (8th Cir. 2019) (ALJ did not err
in failing to include in RFC certain limitations set forth in medical opinion, as record
contained substantial evidence that supported RFC assessment). The ALJ was not
required to adopt the exact limitations set forth in the opinions she found persuasive,
and substantial evidence supported the RFC findings regarding Wyatt’s abilities to
interact with others in the workplace. See Webster v. Kijakazi, 19 F.4th 715, 719 (5th
Cir. 2021) (while ALJ did not adopt opinion verbatim which limited claimant to
minimal interaction with others, ALJ incorporated opinion by limiting claimant to
occasional public contact, and RFC assessment was supported by substantial
evidence); 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.
                     ______________________________

                                          -2-