Crystal Moore v. Andrew Saul, No. 19-2675 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Beam and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the decision to deny benefits; the ALJ adequately considered the combined effects of claimant's impairments, cited proper reasons for discounting claimant's subjective complaints and posed properly supported hypothetical questions to the vocational expert.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2675 ___________________________ Crystal Mae Moore lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner, Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: April 23, 2020 Filed: May 22, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Crystal Moore appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. After consideration of Moore’s arguments for reversal, we agree with the court that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Nash v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 907 F.3d 1086, 1089 (8th Cir. 2018) (de novo review of district court’s judgment; Commissioner’s decision will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence in record as whole). Specifically, we find that the administrative law judge (ALJ) adequately considered the combined effects of Moore’s impairments, see Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 924 (8th Cir. 2011) (ALJ properly considered combined effects of claimant’s impairments by expressly finding that she did not have “impairment or combination of impairments” that satisfied listings, and discussing medical evidence regarding each of her impairments); and cited proper reasons in finding her subjective complaints not fully consistent with the overall record, see Swink v. Saul, 931 F.3d 765, 771 (8th Cir. 2019) (ALJ’s credibility determination, which analyzed objective findings on examination, diagnostic imaging results, and claimant’s daily activities, was supported by substantial evidence). We find that the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert were not deficient, as Moore’s argument for greater limitations relies largely on her subjective reports, which the ALJ properly discounted. See Schwandt v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1004, 1013 (8th Cir. 2019) (substantial evidence supported ALJ’s omission of additional limitations from claimant’s residual functional capacity, as those limitations were based on claimant’s testimony and were undermined by other evidence of record). The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable John M. Bodenhausen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, 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.
