Susan Greifzu-Hamric v. Nancy Berryhill, No. 17-2519 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence supported the decision to terminate disability benefits based on substantial medical improvement.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2519 ___________________________ Susan L. Greifzu-Hamric lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: July 30, 2018 Filed: August 3, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Susan L. Greifzu-Hamric appeals from the order of the district court1 affirming the termination of her disability insurance benefits based on a finding of substantial 1 The Honorable Noelle C. Collins, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 535(c). medical improvement. For reversal, she contends that the ALJ (1) failed to give adequate weight to a treating physician’s opinion; (2) erred in her credibility finding and RFC determination; and (3) relied on an improper vocational expert opinion regarding the availability of work.2 Upon review, we reject Greifzu-Hamric’s arguments, and conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision to terminate benefits. See Delph v. Astrue, 538 F.3d 940, 945 (8th Cir. 2008). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 2 This court need not address arguments Greifzu-Hamric failed to present to the district court. See Hepp v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 798, 806 (8th Cir. 2008). -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.
