Bobby Ayers v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 11-2655 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. Denial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; district court did not abuse its discretion by denying claimant's motion for remand for consideration of new evidence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2655 ___________ Bobby Dale Ayers, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: December 22, 2011 Filed: December 28, 2011 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Bobby Dale Ayers appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, including the new evidence that the Appeals Council considered. See Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825, 828 & n.2 (8th Cir. 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). 2008). In particular, we disagree with Ayers (1) that he was presumptively disabled under certain listings, see McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 611-12 (8th Cir. 2011) (to qualify for disability under listing, claimant has burden to establish his condition meets or equals all specified medical criteria); (2) that the ALJ erred in determining Ayer s residual functional capacity (RFC), see Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 971 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ is responsible for determining RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant s own description of his limitations; RFC finding must be supported by some medical evidence); and that the ALJ was not entitled to rely on the MedicalVocational Guidelines (Guidelines), see Baker v. Barnhart, 457 F.3d 882, 894-95 (8th Cir. 2006) (Guidelines are properly used where ALJ explicitly discredits claimant s subjective complaints of pain for legally sufficient reasons). Finally, to the extent Ayers is challenging the district court s denial of his motion to remand for consideration of new evidence, we find no abuse of discretion. See Mouser v. Astrue, 545 F.3d 634, 636 (8th Cir. 2008). The judgment is affirmed.2 ______________________________ 2 We decline to consider issues that Ayers raises for the first time on appeal. See Gragg v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 932, 938 (8th Cir. 2010). -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.
