Ross v. O'Malley, No. 22-3126 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Kevin Ross filed for disability insurance benefits due to deep vein thrombosis in the left hip, a cervical spine disc replacement, and a bulging disc in the lumbar spine. Ross contended that these ailments rendered him incapable of working in the national economy. However, the Social Security Administration denied Ross's claim, and the administrative law judge (ALJ) affirmed the denial. Ross sought judicial review, but the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas affirmed the ALJ's decision.
Ross appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing that the ALJ overlooked his inability to move his neck up and down and his back limitations. He also argued that the ALJ improperly discredited his testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms. The appellate court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision, noting that the medical record contained contradictory findings about Ross's neck movement and back limitations. The court also found that the ALJ properly discredited Ross's testimony since the evidence as a whole was inconsistent with Ross's claims. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Ross was not disabled and could work as a document preparer and surveillance system monitor.
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Melloy and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. The evidence supported a finding that claimant's cervical restrictions did not prevent him from performing the jobs of document preparer or surveillance system monitor; substantial evidence also supported the ALJ's determinations regarding the limitations imposed by claimant's back restrictions; the ALJ did not err in discrediting claimant's testimony regarding the extent and severity of his conditions; the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert was not flawed.
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.