Sheila A. Grind v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commission of the Social Security Administration

11-1232Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit29.08.2014

Gesamter Gesetzestext

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-3760
___________________________
Sheila A. Grind
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commission of the Social Security Administration
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: August 14, 2014
Filed: August 19, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

Sheila A. Grind appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of1
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Because the
administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) opinion is supported by substantial evidence on
the record as a whole, we affirm. See Hill v. Colvin, 753 F.3d 798, 800 (8th Cir.
2014) (de novo review). We defer to the ALJ’s determination that Grind’s subjective
complaints were not fully credible, as it was supported by several valid reasons, see
Turpin v. Colvin, 750 F.3d 989, 993 (8th Cir. 2014); and we find no merit to Grind’s
assertion that the ALJ’s determination of her residual functional capacity (RFC) did
not adequately account for her knee arthritis and obesity. See Myers v. Colvin, 721
F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013) (RFC must be determined based on all relevant
evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others,
and claimant’s own description of her limitations; RFC must be supported by some
medical evidence); see also Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir. 2012)
(burden of persuasion to demonstrate RFC and prove disability remains on claimant).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the1
Eastern 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-

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.