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.
Pamela Ann WILLIAMS Plaintiff - Appellant v. Andrew SAUL Defendant - Appellee
[Unpublished]
Pamela Williams appeals the district court's 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. After careful consideration of Williams's arguments for reversal, we agree with the court that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision that Williams was not disabled through the date last insured (DLI). See Twyford v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 929 F.3d 512, 516 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo review of district court's judgment; this court will affirm unless Commissioner's findings are unsupported by substantial evidence or result from legal error); Ponder v. Colvin, 770 F.3d 1190, 1194 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (substantial evidence supported ALJ's decision that claimant was not disabled, as medical evidence showed new conditions arose after DLI and did not reflect symptoms thereof prior to DLI). We find that the ALJ adequately considered the medical evidence regarding Williams's condition after the DLI as it related to the period for which she was insured for benefits, see Craig v. Apfel, 212 F.3d 433, 436 (8th Cir. 2000) (ALJ is not required to discuss all evidence submitted, and failure to cite specific evidence does not indicate that it was not considered); Pyland v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 873, 877 (8th Cir. 1998) (evidence of disability after DLI can be relevant in helping to elucidate medical condition during time for which benefits might be awarded); and that the ALJ did not err in failing to contact a medical advisor, see Grebenick v. Chater, 121 F.3d 1193, 1201 (8th Cir. 1997) (where medical evidence was not ambiguous as to possibility that claimant's disability onset occurred before DLI, ALJ was not required to consult medical advisor).
The judgment is affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
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. 19-3465
Decided: June 30, 2020
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)