Elecia Smith v. Commissioner, Social Security, No. 18-2310 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determinations that claimant's impairments did not meet any listing; substantial evidence also supported the determination regarding claimant's residual functional capacity.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2310 ___________________________ Elecia Smith lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________ Submitted: April 19, 2019 Filed: June 05, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Elecia Smith appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Having considered Smith’s arguments for reversal, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Stanton v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 899 F.3d 555, 557-58 (8th Cir. 2018) (de novo review of district court’s judgment; affirmation is warranted if Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in record as whole). Specifically, substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) findings that Smith’s impairments did not meet any listings, see Blackburn v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2014) (to meet listing, claimant had to show that he met all of listing’s criteria); and the ALJ’s findings regarding Smith’s residual functional capacity, see Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082, 1089 (8th Cir. 2016) (substantial evidence supported RFC determination based on treating physician’s opinion, state agency opinions, and ALJ’s review of medical evidence). We also find that Smith’s post-hearing evidence is either cumulative or not material to the period at issue, see Whitman v. Colvin, 762 F.3d 701, 709 (8th Cir. 2014) (progressive changes on X-rays taken 7 months after date last insured did not relate to period at issue, and pre-hearing records regarding recent symptoms and Xray similar to previous examination were cumulative); Bergmann v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 1065, 1069-70 (8th Cir. 2000) (to be material, evidence must be relevant to claimant’s condition for denial period, and must not merely detail post-decision deterioration of pre-existing condition; new evidence must be more than merely cumulative). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Barry A. Bryant, Magistrate Judge, United States District Court 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.
