Karen Babcock v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 13-1628 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. ALJ's decision denying benefits was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; ALJ's credibility determination was entitled to deference; claimant failed to meet her burden of showing she was disabled under Listing 9.08A; the ALJ did not err in discounting opinion testimony from claimant's treating neurologist; the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination was based on relevant factors and some medical evidence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1628 ___________________________ Karen Babcock lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison ____________ Submitted: October 31, 2013 Filed: November 5, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Karen Babcock appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits as of February 10, 2004. Upon de novo review, see McDade v. Astrue, 720 F.3d 994, 997-98 (8th Cir. 2013), we find that the administrative law judge s (ALJ s) decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Specifically, we find that (1) the ALJ s credibility determination is entitled to deference, see Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012); (2) Babcock failed to meet her burden of showing that she was disabled under Listing 9.08A, see Carlson v. Astrue, 604 F.3d 589, 593 (8th Cir. 2010) (burden is on claimant to establish she meets all criteria for listing); (3) the opinions of treating neurologist Bruce Robbins that Babcock met the criteria for Listing 9.08A, and about her residual functional capacity (RFC), were not entitled to great weight for the reasons the ALJ cited, see McDade, 720 F.3d at 999-1000 (treating physician s opinion was properly discounted because it was unclear whether his use of term disabled comported with use of term under Social Security Act and regulations, and it appeared to rely largely on claimant s own subjective reports of limitations and symptoms); see also Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 964 (8th Cir. 2010) (treating physician s opinion properly discounted as it consisted of checklist forms, cited no medical evidence, and provided little to no explanation); and (4) the ALJ s RFC determination was based on consideration of the relevant factors and some medical evidence, as required, see Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013).2 The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Erin Setser, 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). 2 We do not address the matters Babcock has abandoned on appeal. 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.
