Steve Nicoski v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1808
___________________________
Steve Nicoski
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: August 31, 2023
Filed: September 14, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Steve Nicoski appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of
disability insurance benefits. We agree with the court that substantial evidence in the
1The Honorable Dulce J. Foster, United States Magistrate Judge for the District
of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the
parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

record as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Swarthout v. Kijakazi, 35 F.4th
608, 610 (8th Cir. 2022) (standard of review).
Specifically, we find that the administrative law judge (ALJ) properly
considered Nicoski’s subjective complaints, including those regarding his chronic
pain syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome. See id. at 612 (claimant’s daily
activities suggested she was not as limited as alleged); Pierce v. Kijakazi, 22 F.4th
769, 773 (8th Cir. 2022) (ALJ properly considered claimant’s treatment history and
sporadic work record in discounting his testimony). We also find that substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s determination of Nicoski’s residual functional capacity
(RFC). See Despain v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1024, 1028-29 (8th Cir. 2019) (substantial
evidence supported RFC finding based on providers’ notes, medical consultants’
opinions, and claimant’s treatment). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in
declining to remand the case for consideration of the new evidence Nicoski submitted
to the district court, as that evidence was not new and material, or Nicoski did not
provide good cause for failing to submit it to the ALJ. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (court
may order new evidence taken before Commissioner only upon showing that there is
new and material evidence, and that there is good cause for failure to incorporate such
evidence into record in prior proceeding); Whitman v. Colvin, 762 F.3d 701, 710 (8th
Cir. 2014) (no abuse of discretion in declining to remand based on new evidence;
even assuming that evidence was material, non-cumulative, and related to period at
issue, claimant failed to show good cause for not providing it before ALJ hearing).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --