Rodney McCain v. Carolyn W. Colvin

674 F. App'x 603
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 3, 2017
Docket16-2688
StatusUnpublished

This text of 674 F. App'x 603 (Rodney McCain v. Carolyn W. 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
Rodney McCain v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 674 F. App'x 603 (8th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Rodney McCain appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. We agree with *604 the district court that substantial evidence on the record as a.whole supported the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determinations as to credibility and residual functional capacity (RFC). See Harvey v. Colvin, 839 F.3d 714, 715 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing de novo district court’s decision, and affirming if Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on record as whole, including new evidence considered by Appeals Council). Because the ALJ gave several valid reasons for finding Mr. McCain’s subjective complaints not entirely credible, we find that the credibility determination is entitled to deference. See Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 2016) (if ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by good reasons and substantial evidence, this court will defer to ALJ’s determination). As to the RFC determination, it was supported by some medical evidence, such as the assessments of a consulting physician, and also the RFC findings of reviewing physicians, which were less restrictive than those of the ALJ. See Boyd v. Colvin, 831 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2016) (it is ALJ’s responsibility to determine RFC based on all relevant evidence: medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and individual’s own description of his ■limitations); Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 932 (8th Cir. 2016) (RFC is medical question, and must be supported by some medical evidence of claimant’s ability to function in workplace). Further, we agree with the ALJ that no treating or examining physician found any greater limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, and Mr. McCain’s motion to supplement the record is denied.

1

. The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United Slates Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was re *604 ferred 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

Laura Julin v. Carolyn W. Colvin
826 F.3d 1082 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
Marcus Hensley v. Carolyn W. Colvin
829 F.3d 926 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
Willie Boyd, Jr. v. Carolyn W. Colvin
831 F.3d 1015 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
Nancy Harvey v. Carolyn W. Colvin
839 F.3d 714 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
674 F. App'x 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodney-mccain-v-carolyn-w-colvin-ca8-2017.