Justin Partee v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 09-3570 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAppellant appealed the district court's order affirming the Social Security Administration's denial of his application for supplemental security income under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). At issue was whether the administrative law judge ("ALJ") failed to properly consider appellant's obesity, depression, and organic brain syndrome; improperly discredited appellant's subjective statements and certain medical evidence, and was biased against his doctor; and inadequately supported the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment ("RFC"). The court held that the ALJ adequately considered appellant's obesity and that the ALJ's determination that appellant did not suffer from a debilitating mental impairment was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. The court also held that the ALJ's decision to give less weight to a particular doctor's determination was reasonable where the doctor's determination contradicted other objective evidence in the record and that appellant provided no evidence to support his bias claims. The court further held that the ALJ adequately considered the evidence before deciding that appellant's subjective statements of pain were incredible. The court finally held that the ALJ considered all of appellant's physical and mental impairments which adequately supported the RFC assessment.
Court Description: Civil Case - social security. Decision to deny supplemental security income benefits is supported by substantial evidence. ALJ properly considered claimant's obesity. Determination claimant was not disabled as a result of mental impairment is supported by substantial evidence. ALJ did not err in not remanding case for consultation by a psychologist or psychiatrist because expert found claimant did not have debilitating mental impairment. ALJ reasonably gave less weight to treating psychologist because other objective evidence contradicted his assessment and record did not support bias claim. ALJ adequately considered evidence in making credibility determinations. Residual functional capacity assessment was supported by substantial evidence.
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.