Quet Sledge v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 08-3990 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - social security. Denial of disability insurance benefits is affirmed. ALJ gave good reasons for discounting the low global- assessment-of-functioning ratings of mental health providers and residual functional capacity findings were supported by the substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-3990 ___________ Quet Sledge, Appellant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Commissioner, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: January 21, 2010 Filed: February 5, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Quet Sledge appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Sledge alleged disability since January 2005 from degenerative joint disease, anxiety, and a bipolar disorder. After a September 2007 hearing, where Sledge was counseled, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Sledge had engaged in substantial gainful activity until at least March 31, 2005; that her combined physical and mental impairments were severe, but alone or combined, they did not 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. meet or equal the requirements of any listing; that her subjective complaints were not entirely credible; and that based on a vocational expert s response to the ALJ s hypothetical, Sledge s mental residual functional capacity (RFC) and physical RFC did not preclude her past relevant work as a data-entry worker, and further, she could perform specified unskilled sedentary jobs existing in substantial numbers. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court summarily affirmed. Following de novo review of the record, see Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838, 841-42 (8th Cir. 2009), we affirm. Contrary to Sledge s primary assertions of error, we conclude that the ALJ gave good reasons for discounting the low global-assessment-of-functioning ratings of Sledge s treating mental health providers. See Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (ALJ may elect in certain circumstances not to give controlling weight to treating physician s opinion, as record must be evaluated as whole; for treating physician s opinion to have controlling weight, it must be supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not be inconsistent with other substantial evidence in case record; physician s own inconsistency may diminish or eliminate weight accorded to his opinion). We also conclude that the ALJ s mental RFC findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Davidson, 578 F.3d at 844 (ALJ should determine RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant s own description of her limitations). We reject as meritless Sledge s other arguments for reversal. 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.
