Michael McKinney v. Martin O’Malley,1 Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3220
___________________________
Michael McKinney
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Martin O’Malley,1 Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: March 20, 2024
Filed: March 28, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
1Martin O’Malley has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social
Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 43(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

Michael McKinney appeals the district court’s2 order affirming the denial of
supplemental security income. We agree with the court that substantial evidence in
the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Kraus v. Saul, 988 F.3d
1019, 1023-24 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). The administrative law judge
(ALJ) was not required to adopt the exact limitations set forth in the opinions she
found partially persuasive, and her residual functional capacity (RFC) determination
regarding McKinney’s abilities to interact with others was supported. See Webster
v. Kijakazi, 19 F.4th 715, 719 (5th Cir. 2021) (while ALJ did not adopt verbatim
opinion which limited claimant to minimal interaction with others, ALJ incorporated
limitation by limiting claimant to occasional public contact, and RFC assessment was
supported by substantial evidence); Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir.
2007) (RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence, including medical
evidence, state agency consultants’ opinions, and claimant’s subjective statements).
As the ALJ did not err in formulating the RFC assessment, she also did not err in
relying on the vocational expert’s (VE’s) testimony based on that assessment. See
Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 889 (8th Cir. 2006) (ALJ’s hypothetical question
to VE need only include limitations that ALJ finds are substantially supported by
record as whole).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
2The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --