Erica Hart v. Kilolo Kijakazi, No. 22-3315 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Grasz, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence supported the denial of supplemental security income, including the ALJ's determination on Residual Functional Capacity.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-3315 ___________________________ Erica Michele Hart lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: May 1, 2023 Filed: May 4, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Erica Hart appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. We agree with the district court that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Kraus v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). Specifically, we find that the administrative law judge (ALJ) properly evaluated Hart’s subjective complaints, and that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) determination. See Despain v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1024, 1028-29 (8th Cir. 2019) (substantial evidence supported RFC finding based on providers’ notes, medical consultants’ opinions, and claimant’s treatment); Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 931 (8th Cir. 2010) (absence of objective medical evidence to support subjective complaints is proper factor to consider); Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 802 (8th Cir. 2005) (evidence of effective treatment relieving symptoms, and of failure to follow recommended treatment, diminishes credibility of subjective complaints). We find no merit to Hart’s arguments that the ALJ was required to identify specific jobs she could obtain when finding that she could do other work, or that the ALJ and the district court were biased against her. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for finding of bias); McMillian v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 215, 221 (8th Cir. 1983) (while Commissioner has burden of proving there is some other type of substantial gainful employment that claimant can perform, Commissioner need not find specific job opening for claimant). Contrary to Hart’s assertion, we note that the Commissioner provided a complete transcript of the administrative record--including the ALJ hearing--for the district court’s review, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable David P. Rush, 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.
