Bobby Pipkin v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 12-3787 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. Denial of disability benefits affirmed; the ALJ gave valid reasons for his credibility determinations and they were entitled to deference; residual functional capacity determination was supported by the medical findings and tests.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3787 ___________________________ Bobby Pipkin lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner, Social Security Commission lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro ____________ Submitted: July 5, 2013 Filed: August 22, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Bobby Pipkin appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review of the record, see Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 793 (8th Cir. 2012), and careful consideration of Pipkin s arguments,2 we find no basis for reversal. Specifically, because the administrative law judge (ALJ) gave several valid reasons for his credibility determination, it is entitled to deference. See Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012). Further, the ALJ properly discounted the opinions of a consulting physician and psychologist as to Pipkin s residual functional capacity (RFC), see Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 888 (8th Cir. 2006) (opinion of consulting physician who examines claimant once does not generally constitute substantial evidence); and the ALJ s RFC determination is supported by some medical evidence, as required, as it is consistent with the medical findings and diagnostic test results in the treatment records, see Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ is responsible for determining RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant s own description of his limitations). Finally, because Pipkin bases his challenge to the ALJ s hypothetical on his other arguments, this challenge necessarily fails as well. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern 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). 2 Pipkin has waived several issues on appeal by not addressing them in his brief, such as the finding that certain of his allegedly disabling impairments were not severe. See Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 n.2 (8th Cir. 2006). -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.
