Scott E. Crow v. Andrew Saul, No. 18-2079 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. The decision to deny disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, and the decision is affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2079 ___________________________ Scott E. Crow, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant, v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: April 15, 2019 Filed: August 6, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Scott Crow appeals an order of the district court1 affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Crow’s application for disability insurance benefits. After careful 1 The Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, now retired, sitting by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). consideration of Crow’s arguments for reversal, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Crow’s impairments did not meet or medically equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, and the evidence also supports the ALJ’s determination of Crow’s residual functional capacity. The ALJ’s subsidiary determinations discounting Crow’s opinion and the opinion of Crow’s treating physician also are supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. See Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082, 1086-88 (8th Cir. 2016); Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937-38 (8th Cir. 2006). Finally, we conclude that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert was adequate, as it captured the “concrete consequences” of Crow’s residual functional capacity. Scott v. Berryhill, 855 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2017); see Hacker, 459 F.3d at 939-40. 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.
