James Tegeler v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 10-1554 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. ALJ's credibility determination was entitled to deference as it was based on valid reasons, and the ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert's testimony.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-1554 ___________ James Kenneth Tegeler, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: August 6, 2010 Filed: August 17, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. James Kenneth Tegeler appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Tegeler alleged disability since October 2005 from a seizure disorder. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that (1) Tegeler s seizure disorder was a severe impairment, but did not 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. meet or medically equal the requirements of any relevant listing; (2) his anxiety was not a severe impairment; (3) his testimony was not entirely credible; (4) as to his residual functional capacity (RFC), he had no physical limitations and his only nonexertional limitations were typical seizure precautions; and (5) while a vocational expert (VE) testified that Tegeler s RFC precluded his past relevant work, in response to the ALJ s hypothetical the VE identified other jobs Tegeler could perform. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Tegeler s arguments for reversal,2 see Dipple v. Astrue, 601 F.3d 833, 836 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review), we affirm. Specifically, we find that the ALJ s credibility determination is entitled to deference as it was based on several valid reasons, see Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010); and that the ALJ properly relied on the VE s response to a hypothetical, see Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 808-09 (8th Cir. 2004). We also find that the evidence Tegeler offered for the first time on appeal did not meet the requirements for remand. See Hepp v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 798, 808 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ 2 We decline to address those arguments that are irrelevant, entirely new, or undeveloped. -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.
