Anteria Pratt v. Commissioner, Social Security, No. 18-1510 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Bowman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. The denial of disability benefits is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. [ December 03, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1510 ___________________________ Anteria Pratt lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: November 26, 2018 Filed: December 4, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Anteria Pratt challenges a district court1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits (DIB). After careful consideration of Pratt’s arguments for 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. reversal, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determination that Pratt was not entitled to DIB. See Chismarich v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 978, 979 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (de novo review). Specifically, we find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Pratt’s neck and back problems were not severe impairments, see Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 923 (8th Cir. 2011) (severe impairment is one which significantly limits claimant’s physical or mental ability to engage in basic work activities); and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s mental residual functional capacity determination, as the ALJ properly discounted the opinion of the medical expert to the extent the expert suggested additional limitations, see Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002) (ALJ may reject opinion of any medical expert if it is inconsistent with medical record as whole). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
