Anika Taylor v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 13-2950 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. Denial of child's disability affirmed; the ALJ's credibility determinations were entitled to deference and substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determinations regarding the child's impairments.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2950 ___________________________ Anika Taylor, on behalf of D.M.T. 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Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: April 24, 2014 Filed: May 27, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Anika Taylor, on behalf of her minor son (D.M.T.), appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of child s disability benefits. Taylor alleged that D.M.T. was disabled from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and insomnia. 1 The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Upon de novo review of the record, this court finds that the administrative law judge s (ALJ s) credibility determination is entitled to deference. See McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 614 (8th Cir. 2011) (where ALJ explicitly discredits claimant and gives good reasons for doing so, court normally defers to credibility findings). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ s determination that D.M.T. s impairments, alone or combined, did not meet or medically equal the severity of one of the listed impairments, or result in the requisite marked limitations in two domains of functioning or extreme limitations in one domain of functioning. See Johnson v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 1067, 1070 (8th Cir. 2004) (claimant has burden to establish impairment meets or equals all specified criteria for listing); 20 C.F.R. ยง 416.926a(a)(b), (e)(2)-(3) (defining marked and extreme ); Moore ex rel. Moore v. Barnhart, 413 F.3d 718, 721 (8th Cir. 2005) (Commissioner s decision will be affirmed if it supported by substantial evidence on record as whole); Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825, 828 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2008) (additional evidence submitted to Appeals Council considered in substantial evidence equation). The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
