Thomas Bell v. Michael Astrue, No. 08-2589 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. Denial of supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits is affirmed as evidence did not support a listing-level severity impairment; the ALJ's residual functional capacity findings were consistent with the record and ALJ appropriately considered nonexertional limitations; and the hypothetical question posed to the VE encompassed the limitations supported by the record.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2589 ___________ Thomas Bell, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, Social Security * Administration Commissioner, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: October 29, 2009 Filed: October 30, 2009 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Thomas Bell appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Bell had alleged in his September 2003 applications that he had been disabled since November 2002 as a result of his total right knee replacement, left shoulder pain, kidney stones, migraine headaches, back problems, and brain dysfunction. Following a hearing, an 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. ยง 636(c). administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Bell, who was then 44 years old, had the residual functional capacity (RFC) for a wide range of sedentary jobs, including a significant number of jobs identified by a vocational expert (VE), and thus Bell was not disabled through the date of the decision. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. Following our de novo review, see Juszczyk v. Astrue, 542 F.3d 626, 631 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that an ALJ s opinion is reviewed to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole), we affirm. Contrary to Bell s arguments on appeal, the evidence did not support a finding that he had an impairment or combination of impairments of listing-level severity. See Johnson v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 1067, 1070 (8th Cir. 2004) (observing that the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that his impairment meets or equals all of a listing s specified criteria). In addition, we believe that the ALJ s RFC findings are consistent with the record as a whole and that the ALJ appropriately took into consideration Bell s nonexertional limitations, discounting Bell s credibility to some extent based on appropriate factors. See Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1038 39 (8th Cir. 2001) (concluding that an ALJ s credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence where the ALJ recited the appropriate factors and noted inconsistencies in the record such as the lack of physician-ordered functional restrictions). Further, the question the ALJ posed to the VE at the hearing encompassed the limitations that were supported by the record and deemed credible by the ALJ, and the VE s response constitutes substantial evidence supporting the denial of benefits. See Hilkemeyer v. Barnhart, 380 F.3d 441, 447 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that a VE s testimony constituted substantial evidence in support of the ALJ s determination that the claimant was not disabled). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
