JESTER v. SAUL (2020)

[Unpublished]

Stephen Lynn Jester appeals the district court's ¹ order upholding the denial of disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). Upon de novo review, we find that substantial evidence supports the determination that Jester is not entitled to DIB or SSI. See Boyd v. Colvin, 831 F.3d 1015, 1017-20 (8th Cir. 2016) (Commissioner's decision will be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence on record as whole). We note that Jester linked his inability to work to frequent and lengthy flare-ups of gout, but there was no objective medical evidence that such flare-ups were frequent or lengthy, and Jester reported that his flare-ups were controlled by medication.² The judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

2.   Jester claimed disabling mental and physical impairments, but on appeal, he focuses solely on his physical impairments. See Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 n.2 (8th Cir. 2006) (abandonment of issue).

PER CURIAM.