Sheila Anderson v. Commissioner, Social Security, No. 18-3300 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. The district court did not err in affirming the denial of disability benefits and its order is affirmed without further comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3300 ___________________________ Sheila Anderson, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant, v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: November 13, 2019 Filed: April 24, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Sheila Anderson appeals a judgment of the district court* upholding a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that denied Anderson’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Anderson argues that the administrative law judge who rendered the decision for the agency ignored evidence of Anderson’s disability, failed to give appropriate weight to the opinions of Anderson’s medical providers, mischaracterized opinions of independent medical examiners who evaluated her workers compensation claim, and propounded a flawed hypothetical question to a vocational expert about Anderson’s functional limitations. The district court filed a twenty-nine page decision that thoroughly addressed the contentions that Anderson raised. The court determined that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Anderson’s claimed limitation in walking, sitting, and standing were not supported by objective medical evidence, that the ALJ did not err in evaluating the opinions of thirteen treating providers and independent medical examiners whom the court discussed individually, and that the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the vocational expert was properly based on all of the impairments that the ALJ found to be true and supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that the district court correctly rejected Anderson’s numerous challenges to the agency’s decision, and that there is no need to augment the district court’s lengthy explanation and analysis. Any arguments raised for the first time on appeal are waived. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ * The Honorable Hildy Bowbeer, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties under 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.
