John Wyatt v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1559
___________________________
John Wyatt
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: October 6, 2023
Filed: October 12, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
John Wyatt appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disability
insurance benefits. We agree with the court that substantial evidence in the record
1The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Kraus v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1019, 1023-24
(8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). We find that the administrative law judge (ALJ)
did not err in declining to include more restrictive limitations regarding interactions
with coworkers and supervisors in Wyatt’s residual functional capacity (RFC)
determination. See Swink v. Saul, 931 F.3d 765, 770 (8th Cir. 2019) (ALJ did not err
in failing to include in RFC certain limitations set forth in medical opinion, as record
contained substantial evidence that supported RFC assessment). The ALJ was not
required to adopt the exact limitations set forth in the opinions she found persuasive,
and substantial evidence supported the RFC findings regarding Wyatt’s abilities to
interact with others in the workplace. See Webster v. Kijakazi, 19 F.4th 715, 719 (5th
Cir. 2021) (while ALJ did not adopt opinion verbatim which limited claimant to
minimal interaction with others, ALJ incorporated opinion by limiting claimant to
occasional public contact, and RFC assessment was supported by substantial
evidence); Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019, 1024 (8th Cir. 2002) (substantial
evidence supported RFC determination based on medical records, consultant and
other medical opinions, and some aspects of claimant’s testimony).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --