Martha Davis v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Eighth Circuit

Martha Davis v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration

142 F.3d 1092, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 8167

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 27, 1998

Docket97-3674

StatusPublished

This text of 142 F.3d 1092 (Martha Davis v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration) 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

Martha Davis v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, 142 F.3d 1092, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 8167 (8th Cir. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

The question in this social-security case is whether the determination by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that the appellant, Martha Davis, was not disabled is supported by substantial evidence. We have had the benefit of thorough opinions by an administrative law judge 3 and the District Court. 4 We have little of substance to add, and we affirm.

We have considered the principal arguments advanced by counsel for Ms. Davis. We cannot agree that the hypothetical question addressed to the vocational expert failed to state accurately those impairments of the claimant that the administrative law judge, on the basis of substantial evidence, found to exist. Nor do we agree that evidence of vascular problems occurring after the decision of the ALJ was sufficiently material to invalidate the ALJ’s findings, or to require a remand for further administrative proceedings. The ALJ’s reasons for not believing all of the claimant’s testimony about pain were soundly based and fully explained in his opinion. We do not believe that the other arguments advanced in support of reversal require discussion.

Affirmed.

3

. The Hon. Dan Dane.

4

. The Hon. Beverly J. Stites, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, sitting by agreement of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

The question in this social-security case is whether the determination by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that the appellant, Martha Davis, was not disabled is supported by substantial evidence. We have had the benefit of thorough opinions by an administrative law judge 3 and the District Court. 4 We have little of substance to add, and we affirm.

We have considered the principal arguments advanced by counsel for Ms. Davis. We cannot agree that the hypothetical question addressed to the vocational expert failed to state accurately those impairments of the claimant that the administrative law judge, on the basis of substantial evidence, found to exist. Nor do we agree that evidence of vascular problems occurring after the decision of the ALJ was sufficiently material to invalidate the ALJ’s findings, or to require a remand for further administrative proceedings. The ALJ’s reasons for not believing all of the claimant’s testimony about pain were soundly based and fully explained in his opinion. We do not believe that the other arguments advanced in support of reversal require discussion.

Affirmed.

3

. The Hon. Dan Dane.

4

. The Hon. Beverly J. Stites, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, sitting by agreement of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F.3d 1092, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 8167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martha-davis-v-kenneth-s-apfel-commissioner-social-security-ca8-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack