James Cusick v. Carolyn Colvin

Eighth Circuit

James Cusick v. Carolyn Colvin

618 F. App'x 876

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 22, 2015

Docket15-1242

StatusUnpublished

This text of 618 F. App'x 876 (James Cusick v. Carolyn Colvin) 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

James Cusick v. Carolyn Colvin, 618 F. App'x 876 (8th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Curtis Cusick appeals the district court’s 1 judgment affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance bene *877 fits and supplemental security income after his hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). For reversal, Cusick argues (1) the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical evidence and determine his residual functional capacity (RFC); (2) the ALJ failed to properly evaluate his subjective complaints and to support the credibility determination; and (3) the Commissioner. and district court failed to consider new evidence presented to the Appeals Council.

Following careful review of the parties’ submissions and the record before us, we conclude that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s finding. See Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1091, 1093 (8th Cir.2012) (standard of review). In particular, first, we conclude that the ALJ did not err in discounting the opinions of Dr. Beégle, because — among other reasons — the opinions were inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record, including the doctor’s treatment notes; the opinions were based on subjective reports; and the treating relationship was brief. See Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842, 849 (8th Cir.2007); Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937-38 (8th Cir.2006). Second, in making the RFC finding, the ALJ properly considered and weighed available medical and other relevant record evidence: the ALJ’s finding was based on independent review of the medical records, the care providers’ treatment notes, Cusick’s medication and work history, and his record of treatment. See Cox v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 614, 619-20 (8th Cir.2007). Third, in making his credibility findings, the ALJ considered requisite factors and provided valid reasons to support the findings. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir.2000); Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir.2010). Finally, the record shows that the post-hearing submissions were considered with the other record evidence. See Riley v. Shalala, 18 F.3d 619, 622 (8th Cir.1994).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

James Curtis Cusick appeals the district court’s 1 judgment affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance bene *877 fits and supplemental security income after his hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). For reversal, Cusick argues (1) the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical evidence and determine his residual functional capacity (RFC); (2) the ALJ failed to properly evaluate his subjective complaints and to support the credibility determination; and (3) the Commissioner. and district court failed to consider new evidence presented to the Appeals Council.

Following careful review of the parties’ submissions and the record before us, we conclude that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s finding. See Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1091, 1093 (8th Cir.2012) (standard of review). In particular, first, we conclude that the ALJ did not err in discounting the opinions of Dr. Beégle, because — among other reasons — the opinions were inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record, including the doctor’s treatment notes; the opinions were based on subjective reports; and the treating relationship was brief. See Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842, 849 (8th Cir.2007); Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937-38 (8th Cir.2006). Second, in making the RFC finding, the ALJ properly considered and weighed available medical and other relevant record evidence: the ALJ’s finding was based on independent review of the medical records, the care providers’ treatment notes, Cusick’s medication and work history, and his record of treatment. See Cox v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 614, 619-20 (8th Cir.2007). Third, in making his credibility findings, the ALJ considered requisite factors and provided valid reasons to support the findings. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir.2000); Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir.2010). Finally, the record shows that the post-hearing submissions were considered with the other record evidence. See Riley v. Shalala, 18 F.3d 619, 622 (8th Cir.1994).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

618 F. App'x 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-cusick-v-carolyn-colvin-ca8-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack