Samuel Hensley v. JoAnne B. Barnhart , 69 F. App'x 343 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 02-3535
    ___________
    Samuel D. Hensley,                   *
    *
    Appellant,         * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the Eastern
    v.                             * District of Arkansas.
    *
    Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner,   *     [UNPUBLISHED]
    Social Security Administration,      *
    *
    Appellee.          *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 17, 2003
    Filed: June 26, 2003
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Samuel D. Hensley appeals the district court's* order affirming the denial of
    disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Having carefully
    reviewed the record, see Pearsall v. Massanari, 
    274 F.3d 1211
    , 1217 (8th Cir. 2001)
    (standard of review), we affirm.
    *
    The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
    consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
    In his June 1996 applications and related documents, Hensley alleged disability
    from degenerative disc disease, head and neck pain, unexplained falls, upper-
    extremity weakness, and periodic insomnia. After a second hearing, where a
    vocational expert testified, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Hensley
    could not perform his past relevant work but he could perform jobs the vocational
    expert identified in response to a hypothetical the ALJ posed.
    We reject Hensley's challenges to the ALJ's credibility findings, which were
    based on multiple valid reasons. See Lowe v. Apfel, 
    226 F.3d 969
    , 972 (8th Cir.
    2000) (where adequately explained and supported, credibility findings are for ALJ to
    make); Riggins v. Apfel, 
    177 F.3d 689
    , 692 (8th Cir. 1999) (there is no doubt
    claimant is experiencing pain, but real issue is severity of pain). We decline to
    consider the new medical records Hensley has submitted, see Delrosa v. Sullivan, 
    922 F.2d 480
    , 483-84 (8th Cir. 1991), or the new arguments he raises, see Misner v.
    Chater, 
    79 F.3d 745
    , 746 (8th Cir. 1996).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-