Addie J. Skeens v. JoAnne B. Barnhart

57 F. App'x 718
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 10, 2003
Docket02-3424
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 F. App'x 718 (Addie J. Skeens v. JoAnne B. Barnhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Addie J. Skeens v. JoAnne B. Barnhart, 57 F. App'x 718 (8th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Addie J. Skeens appeals the District Court’s 1 opinion affirming the denial of supplemental security income. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Banks v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review), we affirm.

In her September 1999 application and related documents, Skeens alleged disability since January 1998 from back and leg pain related to prior injuries, from carpal tunnel syndrome, and from insomnia. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Skeens’s capacity to perform sedentary work had not been compromised by any nonexertional limita *719 tions and that, based on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (Grids), she was not disabled.

The ALJ recited numerous valid reasons for finding Skeens not entirely credible and for discounting the December 1999 opinion of orthopedist Harry Miller that Skeens could not be gainfully employed due to her combined impairments. See Holmstrom v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 715, 720-21 (8th Cir.2001) (weighing of treating physicians’ opinions); Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir.2000) (credibility findings). The ALJ also properly used the Grids as a framework to guide his decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.969a(d) (2002); Social Security Ruling 83-14, 1983 WL 31254, at *6 (Social Security Administration, 1983) (where it is clear that added limitation or restriction has very little effect on exer-tional occupational base, conclusion directed by Grids would not be affected). Further, the ALJ’s decision demonstrates that he considered Skeens’s impairments in combination. See Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir.1994).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

1

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sisson v. Berryhill
D. Minnesota, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 F. App'x 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/addie-j-skeens-v-joanne-b-barnhart-ca8-2003.