Carol Walker v. Nancy A. Berryhill, No. 17-1418 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Gruender, Bowman, and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Social security. Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge's weighing of the medical opinion evidence and claimant's subjective statements in formulating the residual functional capacity. There is no merit to argument relating to vocational expert's testimony, as hypothetical question was consistent with residual functional capacity findings.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1418 ___________________________ Carol Walker lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________ Submitted: November 09, 2017 Filed: November 15, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Carol Walker appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 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). Upon de novo review, this court agrees with the district court that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) weighing of the medical opinion evidence and Walker’s subjective statements in formulating her residual functional capacity (RFC). See Igo v. Colvin, 839 F.3d 724, 728 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review); Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013) (RFC determination is based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of her limitations). Because the ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s (VE’s) response to the hypothetical that the ALJ posed, which was consistent with the ALJ’s RFC findings, there is no merit to Walker’s argument concerning the VE’s testimony. See Gieseke v. Colvin, 770 F.3d 1186, 1189 (8th Cir. 2014). 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.
