Louana Ledbetter v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 13-3182 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. ALJ's decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; the ALJ properly performed his function of weighing conflicting evidence and resolving disagreements regarding claimant's residual functional capacity.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3182 ___________________________ Louana Ledbetter lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: August 5, 2014 Filed: August 22, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Louana Ledbetter appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. review, see Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir. 2013), we find that the administrative law judge s (ALJ s) decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Specifically, we find that the ALJ properly performed his function of weighing conflicting evidence and resolving disagreements among treating and consulting physicians and psychologists concerning Ledbetter s mental residual functional capacity (RFC). See Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 709 (8th Cir. 2007) (it is ALJ s function to weigh conflicting evidence and resolve disagreements among physicians; consulting physician s opinion deserves no special weight); see also Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1064-65 (8th Cir. 2012) (treating physician s opinion does not automatically control; such opinion must be well-supported by medically acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques, and can be discounted if based on claimant s subjective complaints instead of diagnostic findings). We further find that the ALJ s mental RFC determination is consistent with the medical evidence, as well as the ALJ s adverse credibility determination. See Tellez v. Barnhart, 403 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 2005) (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 limitations).2 The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ 2 We consider only the argument Ledbetter has developed. See Garden v. Cent. Nebraska Hous. Corp., 719 F.3d 899, 905 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013). -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.
