Ricky Mellon v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 11-2549 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. The court finds no basis for the overturning the ALJ's decision that claimant was not disabled, and the denial of benefits is affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2549 ___________ Ricky E. Mellon, Appellant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Commissioner, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western * District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: December 2, 2011 Filed: December 7, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Ricky E. Mellon appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon careful de novo review, see Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 897 (8th Cir. 2011), we find no basis for overturning the administrative law judge s (ALJ s) determination that Mellon was not disabled. Specifically, we reject Mellon s arguments (1) that the ALJ 1 The Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(c). failed to develop the record, see Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 933 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ must order medical examinations and tests only if records presented do not provide sufficient evidence to determine whether claimant is disabled); (2) that the ALJ s credibility findings were not supported by substantial evidence; (3) that the opinion of consulting neuropsychologist Vann Smith was entitled to great weight, see Charles v. Barnhart, 375 F.3d 777, 783 (8th Cir. 2004) (generally when consulting physician examines claimant only once, his opinion is not substantial evidence); and (4) that the ALJ s residual functional capacity (RFC) findings were not supported by substantial evidence, see Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 971 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ is responsible for determining RFC based on all relevant evidence). We decline to consider the arguments that Mellon raises for the first time on appeal. See Flynn v. Chater, 107 F.3d 617, 620 (8th Cir. 1997) (new arguments need not be entertained unless manifest injustice would result). The district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
