Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Lance Gerald MILLIMAN Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant-Appellee
[Unpublished]
Lance Gerald Milliman appeals a district court 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We agree with the district court that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the denial of Milliman’s applications. See Thomas v. Berryhill, 881 F.3d 672, 674 (8th Cir. 2018) (de novo review). Specifically, we find no error in the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determinations that Milliman’s mental impairments were not severe, see Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007) (impairment is not severe if it amounts only to slight abnormality that would not limit claimant’s mental ability to do basic work activities); that Milliman’s subjective complaints were not entirely credible, see Bryant v. Colvin, 861 F.3d 779, 782-83 (8th Cir. 2017) (this court defers to ALJ’s credibility findings if they are supported by good reasons and substantial evidence); or that Milliman had the residual functional capacity (RFC) for a full range of light work, 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 claimant’s own description of his limitations). We have carefully considered the other matters Milliman raises on appeal, and we conclude that they also provide no basis for reversal.
The judgment is affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-2719
Decided: April 16, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)