Karen D. Littrell v. Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security Administration

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1923
___________________________
Karen D. Littrell
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: October 1, 2024
Filed: October 4, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRASZ, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Karen Littrell appeals the district court’s order affirming the partial denial of
supplemental security income benefits, after her hearing before an Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ). After careful review, we conclude that remand is required for
further consideration of Littrell’s subjective complaints, particularly her reports of
back and knee pain. See Ross v. O’Malley, 92 F.4th 775, 778 (8th Cir. 2024) (de

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
novo review of district court’s judgment; Commissioner’s decision will be affirmed
if it is supported by substantial evidence on record as whole and ALJ made no legal
error). The ALJ discounted Littrell’s pain complaints without providing sufficient
rationale, as he cited only the lack of objective medical evidence in discounting her
physical complaints generally, and did not address her reports of back and knee pain.
See Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 931-32 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ may not discount
claimant’s subjective complaints solely because they are unsupported by objective
medical evidence, although such absence of evidence is factor to be considered);
Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 802 (8th Cir. 2005) (in rejecting claimant’s
complaints of pain as not credible, court expects ALJ to detail reasons for discrediting
testimony and set forth inconsistencies found).
Because the ALJ’s evaluation of Littrell’s pain complaints was insufficient, the
ALJ’s subsequent determination of her residual functional capacity (RFC) and the
related hypothetical question he posed to the vocational expert (VE) were similarly
infirm. See Swope v. Barnhart, 436 F.3d 1023, 1025 (8th Cir. 2006) (where there was
no indication in ALJ’s opinion that he disbelieved evidence of claimant’s impairment,
it was error not to include impairment in hypothetical question to VE); Cunningham
v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496, 502 (8th Cir. 2000) (reversing in part because ALJ failed to
credit or properly consider evidence of physical impairment that was supported by
medical records). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court, and we
remand with instructions to remand to the Commissioner for further evaluation of
Littrell’s pain complaints.
STRAS, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
I would have affirmed the judgment.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --