Stephen Jester v. Andrew Saul, No. 19-2115 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Beam and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that claimant is not entitled to disability benefits or supplemental security income.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2115 ___________________________ Stephen Lynn Jester lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner, Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana ____________ Submitted: January 31, 2019 Filed: February 11, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Stephen Lynn Jester appeals the district court’s1 order upholding the denial of disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). Upon de novo review, we find that substantial evidence supports the determination that Jester is not entitled to DIB or SSI. See Boyd v. Colvin, 831 F.3d 1015, 1017-20 (8th Cir. 2016) (Commissioner’s decision will be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence on record as whole). We note that Jester linked his inability to work to frequent and lengthy flare-ups of gout, but there was no objective medical evidence that such flare-ups were frequent or lengthy, and Jester reported that his flare-ups were controlled by medication.2 The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Barry A. Bryant, 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). 2 Jester claimed disabling mental and physical impairments, but on appeal, he focuses solely on his physical impairments. See Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 n.2 (8th Cir. 2006) (abandonment of issue). -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.
