Court Description: Per Curiam. Before Smith, Colloton, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges. Civil Case - social security. Substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the decision to deny benefits. The ALJ did not err in discounting the opinions of the treating physician because they were inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record; the ALJ properly considered and weighed the available medical and record evidence; and the ALJ provided support for his credibility findings. Finally, the post-hearing submissions were considered.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1242 ___________________________ James Curtis Cusick lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________ Submitted: October 6, 2015 Filed: October 22, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James Curtis Cusick appeals the district court’s1 judgment affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. income after his hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). For reversal, Cusick argues (1) the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical evidence and determine his residual functional capacity (RFC); (2) the ALJ failed to properly evaluate his subjective complaints and to support the credibility determination; and (3) the Commissioner and district court failed to consider new evidence presented to the Appeals Council. Following careful review of the parties’ submissions and the record before us, we conclude that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s finding. See Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1091, 1093 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). In particular, first, we conclude that the ALJ did not err in discounting the opinions of Dr. Beegle, because--among other reasons--the opinions were inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record, including the doctor’s treatment notes; the opinions were based on subjective reports; and the treating relationship was brief. See Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842, 849 (8th Cir. 2007); Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937-38 (8th Cir. 2006). Second, in making the RFC finding, the ALJ properly considered and weighed available medical and other relevant record evidence: the ALJ’s finding was based on independent review of the medical records, the care providers’ treatment notes, Cusick’s medication and work history, and his record of treatment. See Cox v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 614, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2007). Third, in making his credibility findings, the ALJ considered requisite factors and provided valid reasons to support the findings. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000); Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010). Finally, the record shows that the post-hearing submissions were considered with the other record evidence. See Riley v. Shalala, 18 F.3d 619, 622 (8th Cir. 1994). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ____________________________ -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.
