Charles L. DUGGER, Appellant, v. Louis SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee

Eighth Circuit

Charles L. DUGGER, Appellant, v. Louis SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee

913 F.2d 572, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 16007, 1990 WL 130190

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 12, 1990

Docket89-5327

StatusPublished

This text of 913 F.2d 572 (Charles L. DUGGER, Appellant, v. Louis SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee) 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

Charles L. DUGGER, Appellant, v. Louis SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee, 913 F.2d 572, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 16007, 1990 WL 130190 (8th Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

Charles L. Dugger appeals from the district court’s decision affirming the finding of the Secretary of Health and Human Services that Dugger became disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act as of December 31, 1984, but was not disabled before that time.

On September 13, 1983, Dugger filed an application for Social Security disability benefits alleging disability commencing on June 16, 1978 due to a back injury. Dug-ger’s claim was denied initially, on reconsideration, and by an administrative law judge (ALJ). In March 1986, however, under a new regulation, Dugger was found to have become disabled as of December 31, 1984. Dugger appealed this determination, requesting an earlier disability onset date. Dugger received a hearing before an ALJ, *573 who affirmed the determination that Dug-ger became disabled as of December 31, 1984. The AU’s decision became the final decision of the Secretary. In Dugger’s action for judicial review, the district court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate and granted summary judgment for the Secretary.

On appeal, Dugger claims that the ALJ improperly evaluated his subjective complaints of pain, erroneously gave greater weight to the opinions of consulting phsy-cians than to those of Dugger’s treating physicians, and that substantial evidence in the record as a whole fails to support the Secretary’s decision.

After a careful review of the record, we find these contentions to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision on the basis of the magistrate’s report and recommendation as adopted by the district court. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

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

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

Charles L. Dugger appeals from the district court’s decision affirming the finding of the Secretary of Health and Human Services that Dugger became disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act as of December 31, 1984, but was not disabled before that time.

On September 13, 1983, Dugger filed an application for Social Security disability benefits alleging disability commencing on June 16, 1978 due to a back injury. Dug-ger’s claim was denied initially, on reconsideration, and by an administrative law judge (ALJ). In March 1986, however, under a new regulation, Dugger was found to have become disabled as of December 31, 1984. Dugger appealed this determination, requesting an earlier disability onset date. Dugger received a hearing before an ALJ, *573 who affirmed the determination that Dug-ger became disabled as of December 31, 1984. The AU’s decision became the final decision of the Secretary. In Dugger’s action for judicial review, the district court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate and granted summary judgment for the Secretary.

On appeal, Dugger claims that the ALJ improperly evaluated his subjective complaints of pain, erroneously gave greater weight to the opinions of consulting phsy-cians than to those of Dugger’s treating physicians, and that substantial evidence in the record as a whole fails to support the Secretary’s decision.

After a careful review of the record, we find these contentions to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision on the basis of the magistrate’s report and recommendation as adopted by the district court. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

913 F.2d 572, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 16007, 1990 WL 130190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-l-dugger-appellant-v-louis-sullivan-secretary-of-health-and-ca8-1990.