Ricky Davis v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 13-2891 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. Denial of application for supplemental security income affirmed as the hypothetical question the ALJ posed to the vocational expert was adequate.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2891 ___________________________ Ricky Davis lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: April 23, 2014 Filed: April 28, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ricky Davis appeals from an order of the District Court1 affirming the denial of supplemental security income. On appeal, Davis s only challenge is to the 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. adequacy of the hypothetical the administrative law judge (ALJ) posed to the vocational expert (VE). We find no merit to this challenge. See Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review). Specifically, we conclude that the hypothetical set forth those impairments that were supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, that were accepted as true, and that captured the concrete consequences of the impairments and thus that the ALJ properly relied on the VE s response to the hypothetical to find Davis not disabled. See Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012); see also Hulsey v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 917, 922 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that VE s testimony constitutes substantial evidence when it is based on hypothetical that accounts for all of claimant s proven impairments). We affirm the judgment of the District Court. ______________________________ -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.
