Jimmy Henson v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 11-3247 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. Denial of disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 11-3247 ___________________________ Jimmy D. Henson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: June 29, 2012 Filed: August 6, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jimmy D. Henson appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, see Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 897 (8th Cir. 2011), we conclude that the adverse administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Specifically, we conclude that (1) the administrative law judge s (ALJ s) credibility determination is entitled to deference, see Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 933, 935-36 (8th Cir. 2008) (court defers to ALJ s credibility findings if ALJ explicitly discredits claimant and gives good reasons for doing so); (2) Henson failed to meet his burden of showing that his tremors and unusual gait were severe impairments, see Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707-08 (8th Cir. 2007); (3) the ALJ properly discounted the report of consulting neuropsychologist Vann Smith, 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) the ALJ complied with his duty to develop the record. The district court is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Henson s motion to supplement the record. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Sarah W. Hays, 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. ยง 636(c). -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.
