Tamiko Nelson v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 14-2984 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. The decision denying benefits was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and the denial is affirmed without further comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2984 ___________________________ Tamiko Nelson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana ____________ Submitted: April 24, 2015 Filed: April 29, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Tamiko Nelson appeals the judgment of the district court1 affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, after her hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). On appeal, Nelson argues that the ALJ did not properly assess the combination of her impairments, the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination was not supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert was improper. Following careful review, we conclude that the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, and that Nelson’s arguments do not establish a basis for remand or warrant reversal. See Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); Davidson v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough evidence that a reasonable mind would find adequate to support the Commissioner’s decision.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Barry A. Bryant, 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. § 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.
