Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bye and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence as a whole supported the ALJ's decision to deny benefits; the ALJ did not err in discounting two doctors' opinions as the opinions were inconsistent with the other medical evidence, including their own treatment notes; the ALJ gave multiple valid reasons to support her credibility determination; in making a residual-functional-capacity finding, the ALJ properly considered and weighed the medical evidence, as well as other relevant evidence in the record.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1779 ___________________________ Marcia Trinette Turner-Workman lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: December 7, 2015 Filed: December 21, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Marcia Trinette Turner-Workman appeals the district court’s1 judgment affirming the Commissioner’s denial of supplemental security income after a hearing 1 The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. before an administrative law judge (ALJ). For reversal, Turner-Workman contends that the ALJ (1) erred in evaluating her treating physicians’ opinions; (2) did not properly evaluate her subjective allegations; and (3) erred in relying on a vocational expert’s response to a hypothetical that failed to provide for all of her impairments. Following careful review of the parties’ submissions and the record before us, we conclude that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s determination. See Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1091, 1093 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). First, we conclude that the ALJ did not err in discounting the opinions of Drs. Tamara Wright and Lloyd Miller, because--inter alia--the opinions were inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record, including the physicians’ own treatment notes; the opinions were based on subjective reports or information supplied by others; and the opinions lacked explanation for their findings. See Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842, 848-49 (8th Cir. 2007); Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937-38 (8th Cir. 2006). Second, in making her credibility determination on Turner-Workman’s subjective allegations, the ALJ considered requisite factors and provided multiple valid reasons to support the credibility determination. See Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010); Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000). Finally, in making the residual-functional-capacity finding, the ALJ properly considered and weighed available medical and other relevant record evidence: the ALJ’s finding was based on independent review of the medical records, Turner-Workman’s daily activities and functioning, her pattern of noncompliance with medication and treatment recommendations, and her inconsistent reporting. See Goose v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 981, 984-85 (8th Cir. 2001). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
