JONES v. COX (2018)

[Unpublished]

Janice Jones appeals from the order of the district court ¹ affirming the Commissioner’s denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Liberally construing Jones’s pro se filings as challenging the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) residual functional capacity (RFC) determination, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC finding and his ultimate conclusion that Jones was not disabled. See Andrews v. Colvin, 791 F.3d 923, 928 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review). As to Jones’s claim that her hearing was deficient and conducted unprofessionally, we conclude that Jones failed to demonstrate that any alleged error was not harmless.² See Byes v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 913, 917 (8th Cir. 2012) (to show error is not harmless, claimant must provide some indication that ALJ would have decided differently if error had not occurred). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

2.   We need not address Jones’s additional contention that an administrative appeals judge “prejudged” her, as she raises this issue for the first time on appeal. See Hepp v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 798, 806 (8th Cir. 2008) (issue is waived if claimant does not raise it before district court).

PER CURIAM.