From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stringer v. Berryhill

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Nov 9, 2017
No. 17-1511 (8th Cir. Nov. 9, 2017)

Summary

finding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's RFC assessment even without any corroborating medical opinion

Summary of this case from Smith v. Saul

Opinion

No. 17-1511

11-09-2017

James Bret Stringer Plaintiff - Appellant v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant - Appellee


Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield [Unpublished] Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

James Bret Stringer appeals the district court's order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of appointed counsel, see Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (relevant criteria include factual and legal complexity of case; there is no statutory or constitutional right to appointment of counsel in civil case), or in the denial of entry of default judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (default judgment warranted only when defendant "has failed to plead or otherwise defend"); Taylor v. City of Ballwin, 859 F.2d 1330, 1332 (8th Cir. 1988) (abuse-of-discretion standard of review).

The Honorable Robert E. Larsen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, now retired, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the denial of benefits. See Gann v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 947, 950-51 (8th Cir. 2017). Specifically, the administrative law judge's (ALJ's) credibility determination is entitled to deference, because it was based on several valid reasons. See Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 2016) (credibility determination is ALJ's province, and, so long as it is supported by good reasons and substantial evidence, this court will defer to it); see also Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ is not required to discuss each credibility factor as long as factors are acknowledged and considered). Further, under the circumstances of this case, the ALJ was not required to schedule a second consultative examination. See Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 926-27 (8th Cir. 2011) (ALJ is required to order tests and medical examinations only if medical records presented to him give insufficient medical evidence to determine if claimant is disabled); Shannon v. Chater, 54 F.3d 484, 488 (8th Cir.1995) (reversal for failure to develop record is warranted only when such failure is unfair or prejudicial). As to residual functional capacity (RFC), the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence, in part because the credibility determination was proper. See Boyd v. Colvin, 831 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2016) (it is ALJ's responsibility to determine RFC based on all relevant evidence: medical records, observations of treating physician and others, and claimant's own description of his limitations). While there were no medical opinions, it appears the medical evidence would have supported even a less restrictive RFC, see Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 931-32 (8th Cir. 2016) (RFC is medical question and must be supported by some medical evidence of claimant's ability to function in workplace, but there is no requirement that RFC findings be supported by specific medical opinion); and, contrary to Stringer's assertion, it was his burden to establish his RFC, see id. at 932. Finally, we reject Stringer's assertion of ALJ bias. See Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 902-03 (8th Cir. 2011) (claimant bears burden of producing sufficient evidence to overcome presumption that ALJ is unbiased). The judgment is affirmed.

The ALJ who denied Stringer DIB and SSI in February 2013, found Stringer capable of lifting more weight, and engaging in more walking and standing. --------


Summaries of

Stringer v. Berryhill

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Nov 9, 2017
No. 17-1511 (8th Cir. Nov. 9, 2017)

finding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's RFC assessment even without any corroborating medical opinion

Summary of this case from Smith v. Saul

affirming RFC without medical opinion evidence

Summary of this case from Nisic v. Kijakazi

affirming ALJ's RFC determination even though there were no medical opinions

Summary of this case from Frank P. C. v. Kijakazi

affirming ALJ's RFC determination even though there were no medical opinions

Summary of this case from Melanie N. v. Saul

affirming a finding that the claimant was not disabled; noting, "While there were no medical opinions, it appears the medical evidence would have supported even a less restrictive RFC"

Summary of this case from Newcom v. Saul

affirming ALJ's RFC determination even though there were no medical opinions

Summary of this case from Ruble v. Saul

affirming ALJ's RFC determination even though there were no medical opinions

Summary of this case from Sheena C. v. Saul

affirming a finding that the claimant was not disabled; noting, "While there were no medical opinions, it appears the medical evidence would have supported even a less restrictive RFC"

Summary of this case from Lerouge v. Saul

affirming ALJ's RFC determination even though there were no medical opinions

Summary of this case from Darrell B. v. Saul

affirming a finding that the claimant was not disabled; noting, "While there were no medical opinions, it appears the medical evidence would have supported even a less restrictive RFC"

Summary of this case from Daniel v. Saul

affirming a finding that the claimant was not disabled; noting, "While there were no medical opinions, it appears the medical evidence would have supported even a less restrictive RFC"

Summary of this case from Brunaugh v. Saul

affirming a finding that the claimant was not disabled; noting, "While there were no medical opinions, it appears the medical evidence would have supported even a less restrictive RFC"

Summary of this case from Massa v. Saul

affirming ALJ's RFC determination even though there were no medical opinions

Summary of this case from Rhonda Sue V. v. Berryhill
Case details for

Stringer v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:James Bret Stringer Plaintiff - Appellant v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting…

Court:United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

Date published: Nov 9, 2017

Citations

No. 17-1511 (8th Cir. Nov. 9, 2017)

Citing Cases

Ruble v. Saul

Nonetheless, there is no requirement that an RFC finding be supported by a specific medical opinion, Hensley…

Walker v. O'Malley

While the RFC findings must be supported by medical evidence, there is no requirement that it be supported by…