Taby Hargett v. Nancy A. Berryhill, No. 16-4263 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. The ALJ properly weighed the medical evidence and claimant's subjective statements in evaluating her impairments and in formulating her residual functional capacity; the ALJ properly relied on the Vocational Expert's testimony as the hypothetical posed accounted for all of claimant's proven impairments, and the testimony was consistent with the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity determination.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4263 ___________________________ Taby L. Hargett lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: November 21, 2017 Filed: November 28, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Taby Hargett appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of supplemental security insurance benefits. Upon de novo review, we agree with the 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. district court that the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Igo v. Colvin, 839 F.3d 724, 728 (8th Cir. 2016). Specifically, we conclude that the ALJ properly weighed the medical evidence and Hargett’s subjective statements in evaluating her impairments and formulating her residual functional capacity (RFC), see Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013) (explaining that the RFC determination is based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and the claimant’s own description of her limitations); Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 929-30 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that a treating physician’s opinions are entitled to less weight when they are inconsistent or contrary to the medical evidence as a whole); McGeorge v. Barnhart, 321 F.3d 766, 769 (8th Cir. 2003) (finding the ALJ properly limited the RFC determination to only those impairments and limitations he determined were credible); and that Hargett did not establish a more restrictive RFC, see Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 923 (8th Cir. 2011) (stating that the burden of persuasion to prove disability and demonstrate RFC remains on the claimant). Further, the ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s (VE’s) response to the hypothetical that the ALJ posed, which was consistent with the ALJ’s RFC findings. See Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549, 560-61 (8th Cir. 2011) (concluding that a VE’s testimony that is based on a hypothetical that accounts for all of the claimant’s proven impairments constitutes substantial evidence). 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.
