Scott E. Crow v. Andrew Saul ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 18-2079
    ___________________________
    Scott E. Crow,
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    Andrew Saul, Commissioner, Social Security Administration,
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee.
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
    ____________
    Submitted: April 15, 2019
    Filed: August 6, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Scott Crow appeals an order of the district court1 affirming the Commissioner’s
    denial of Crow’s application for disability insurance benefits. After careful
    1
    The Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the
    District of Minnesota, now retired, sitting by consent of the parties pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c).
    consideration of Crow’s arguments for reversal, we agree with the district court that
    substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the adverse decision.
    Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Crow’s
    impairments did not meet or medically equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part
    404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, and the evidence also supports the ALJ’s determination
    of Crow’s residual functional capacity. The ALJ’s subsidiary determinations
    discounting Crow’s opinion and the opinion of Crow’s treating physician also are
    supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. See Julin v.
    Colvin, 
    826 F.3d 1082
    , 1086-88 (8th Cir. 2016); Hacker v. Barnhart, 
    459 F.3d 934
    ,
    937-38 (8th Cir. 2006). Finally, we conclude that the hypothetical question posed to
    the vocational expert was adequate, as it captured the “concrete consequences” of
    Crow’s residual functional capacity. Scott v. Berryhill, 
    855 F.3d 853
    , 858 (8th Cir.
    2017); see Hacker, 
    459 F.3d at 939-40
    .
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-2079

Filed Date: 8/6/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2019