Patricia Riniker v. Commissioner, Social Security, No. 18-2225 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. The ALJ gave valid reasons for discounting claimant's subjective complaints and the decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence; the remainder of claimant's issues are raised for the first time on appeal and would not be considered as there was no showing that failure to consider the issues not raised before the district court would result in a manifest injustice.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2225 ___________________________ Patricia Ann Riniker lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque ____________ Submitted: April 11, 2019 Filed: April 19, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Patricia Ann Riniker appeals the district court’s1 affirmance of a decision denying her disability insurance benefits, which we review de novo. See Combs v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 642, 645-46 (8th Cir. 2017) (ensuring that substantial evidence on record as whole supports decision). We agree with the district court that because the administrative law judge (ALJ) gave several valid reasons for discounting Riniker’s subjective complaints, any error based on the ALJ’s failure to mention her work history in his credibility analysis was harmless. See Bryant v. Colvin, 861 F.3d 779, 782-83 (8th Cir. 2017) (this court defers to ALJ’s credibility determination if it is supported by good reasons and substantial evidence). As to the remaining issues Riniker raises on appeal, they are new and she has not shown that manifest injustice would result if this court declines to consider them. See Gragg v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 932, 938 (8th Cir. 2010) (declining to consider issue not raised in district court as appellant made no showing that manifest injustice would otherwise result). The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Kelly K. E. Mahoney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -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.
