Kimberly Poller v. JoAnne B. Barnhart, No. 05-3793 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. ALJ's finding that claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act was supported by substantial evidence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-3793 ___________ Kimberly Poller, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: October 26, 2006 Filed: October 31, 2006 ___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Kimberly Poller appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon careful review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge s (ALJ s) decision that Poller is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. See 1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Thomas C. Mummert, III, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 993 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). After ordering consultative neurological and psychological examinations and eliciting testimony from a vocational expert, the ALJ found that Poller retains the residual functional capacity to perform a wide range of light work and the full range of sedentary work. Poller has not shown prejudice from the ALJ s failure to further develop the record, see id. at 994 (to remand for additional evidence, claimant must establish that ALJ s failure to fully develop record resulted in prejudice), and the ALJ gave good reasons for discrediting Poller s complaints of disabling pain, see Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 792 (8th Cir. 2005) (this court will not disturb decision of ALJ who considers, but for good cause expressly discredits, claimaint s complaints of disabling pain). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
