CROW v. SAUL (2019)

[Unpublished]

Scott Crow appeals an order of the district court ¹ affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Crow’s application for disability insurance benefits. After careful consideration of Crow’s arguments for reversal, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Crow’s impairments did not meet or medically equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, and the evidence also supports the ALJ’s determination of Crow’s residual functional capacity. The ALJ’s subsidiary determinations discounting Crow’s opinion and the opinion of Crow’s treating physician also are supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. See Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082, 1086-88 (8th Cir. 2016); Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937-38 (8th Cir. 2006). Finally, we conclude that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert was adequate, as it captured the “concrete consequences” of Crow’s residual functional capacity. Scott v. Berryhill, 855 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2017); see Hacker, 459 F.3d at 939-40.

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

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, now retired, sitting by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

PER CURIAM.