Michael Lowman v. Commissioner, Social Security, No. 18-2091 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Erickson, Wollman and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. The ALJ's credibility determinations were supported by numerous valid reasons and were entitled to deference; the ALJ's findings with respect to claimant's residual functional capacity were consistent with the medical evidence and ability-to-work assessments.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2091 ___________________________ Michael Lowman lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________ Submitted: March 20, 2019 Filed: March 25, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Michael Lowman appeals the district court’s1 affirmance of a decision denying him disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We agree with 1 The Honorable Erin Wiedemann, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). the district court that the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Stanton v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 899 F.3d 555, 557-58 (8th Cir. 2018) (de novo review). Specifically, we find that the ALJ’s determination that Lowman’s subjective complaints were not entirely credible is entitled to deference, as the ALJ cited numerous valid reasons in support of this adverse determination. See Nash v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 907 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir. 2018) (credibility findings are province of ALJ, and this court defers to them if they are supported by good reasons and substantial evidence). Further, we find that the ALJ’s findings as to Lowman’s residual functional capacity (RFC) are consistent with the medical evidence, which included assessments of his ability to work. See Boyd v. Colvin, 831 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2016) (it is ALJ’s responsibility to determine RFC based on all relevant evidence: medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of his limitations); Mabry v. Colvin, 815 F.3d 386, 390 (8th Cir. 2016) (claimant bears burden of establishing RFC; because RFC is medical question, it must be supported by some evidence of claimant’s ability to function in workplace); see also Scott v. Berryhill, 855 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir. 2017) (to constitute substantial evidence, vocational expert’s testimony must be based on hypothetical that captures concrete effects of claimant’s impairments). 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.
