Jamie Gammage v. Commissioner, Social Security, No. 18-1292 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the decision to deny benefits; ALJ's finding that claimant's subjective complaints were not entirely credible is entitled to deference, and the ALJ's determination of claimant's Residual Functional Capacity was supported by substantial evidence. [ November 13, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1292 ___________________________ Jamie Gammage lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: November 7, 2018 Filed: November 14, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jamie Gammage appeals from the order of the District Court1 affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. After 1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. de novo review of the record and consideration of Gammage’s arguments for reversal, we conclude that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the decision. See Fentress v. Berryhill, 854 F.3d 1016, 1019–20 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review). Specifically, the finding by the administrative law judge (ALJ) that Gammage’s subjective complaints were not entirely credible is entitled to deference. See Vester v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2005)(“[W]e defer to the ALJ’s determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses so long as such determinations are supported by good reasons and substantial evidence.”). Further, the ALJ’s determination on Gammage’s residual functional capacity (RFC) is supported by substantial evidence. See Mabry v. Colvin, 815 F.3d 386, 390 (8th Cir. 2016) (“The claimant has the burden to establish his RFC.”); Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 897 (8th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that a treating physician’s opinion may be discounted and that the record as a whole must be evaluated). We affirm the judgment. ______________________________ -2-