Joseph Feldpausch v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 08-2078 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - social security. Substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports ALJ's determination that claimant was not disabled before the expiration of his insured status.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2078 ___________ Joseph L. Feldpausch, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of * Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: December 1, 2009 Filed: December 4, 2009 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Joseph Feldpausch (Feldpausch) appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. His August 2003 application for benefits alleged a disability onset date of July 1, 1985, as a result of ulcers, migraines, sleep apnea, night cramps, fatigue, back problems, and pain in his right foot, ankle, and leg. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Feldpausch was 1 The Honorable Jon Stuart Scoles, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(c). not disabled withing the meaning of the Social Security Act before the expiration of his insured status in March 1992. The ALJ relied in part on the testimony of a vocational expert (VE) about the existence of a significant number of jobs Feldpausch could be expected to perform. After careful de novo review, we find substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ s determination. See Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902, 906-07 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review; explaining, to be entitled to benefits, a claimant needs to prove she was disabled before her insurance expired); Hilkemeyer v. Barnhart, 380 F.3d 441, 447 (8th Cir. 2004) (deciding VE testimony constituted substantial evidence in support of the ALJ s determination that claimant was not disabled). 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.
