Liner v. Colvin, No. 15-2551 (8th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Plaintiff, complaining of right-shoulder and arm pain, appealed the denial of his application for disability benefits. The court concluded that the ALJ's denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence because plaintiff has the residual functioning capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work, and the ALJ limited plaintiff to work involving no overhead reaching with his right arm. Further, the medical evidence supports the RFC. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Riley, Chief Judge, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. The medical evidence supported the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity finding and the denial of benefits is affirmed. [ March 04, 2016

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2551 ___________________________ Mark Liner 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 Arkansas - El Dorado ____________ Submitted: February 10, 2016 Filed: March 7, 2016 [Published] ____________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, LOKEN and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mark Liner applied for disability benefits, complaining of right-shoulder and arm pain. The ALJ found he lacked credibility and denied his application. The Appeals Council denied Liner’s request for review. The district court1 affirmed. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. Reviewed de novo, the agency’s decision is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. See Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 577 (8th Cir. 2006). The ALJ concluded Liner has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work, which “involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a). The ALJ further limited Liner to work involving no overhead reaching with his right arm. Liner argues this did not account fully for his right-shoulder impairment. The RFC is the most a claimant can do despite limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). The ALJ considers all relevant evidence, but the final determination must be supported by some medical evidence. See Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 969 (8th Cir. 2010). Liner had right-shoulder surgery in 1990. In 2012, he saw Dr. Jerry Grant for shoulder pain, who found Liner had no right grip strength and a 0-90 degree range of motion. An agency-ordered consultative examination showed “[s]uspect mild degenerative changes” and limited range of motion in the right shoulder, but no muscle atrophy or sensory abnormalities. The examination also showed normal coordination, normal limb function, and normal grip strength. This medical evidence supports the RFC. ******* The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, sitting by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -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.