Penny Barton v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 14-2119 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. Denial of benefits affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2119 ___________________________ Penny L. Barton 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for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: January 6, 2015 Filed: January 14, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Penny L. Barton appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. For reversal, Barton argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred (1) in assessing her residual functional capacity, and in failing to assign appropriate weight to the findings of her treating and examining physicians and other medical sources; (2) in finding that she was capable of performing her past relevant work, and other work identified by a vocational expert; and (3) in failing to consider all of the evidence in the record, including the observations of and information provided by third parties. Following a careful and thorough review of the record, we conclude that the ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, that Barton’s arguments do not support reversal, and that an extended discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Matt Jeffrey Whitworth, 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. § 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.
