Kaila Gilby v. Commissioner, Social Security

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Kaila Gilby v. Commissioner, Social Security

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2395 ___________________________

Kaila F. Gilby

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Commissioner, Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________

Submitted: February 27, 2019 Filed: March 18, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Kaila F. Gilby appeals from the order of the District Court1 affirming the decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) denying disability insurance benefits.

1 The Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, by consent of the parties. Gilby contends that the ALJ erred in his credibility determination, improperly discounted her subjective claims of pain, and failed to develop the record regarding her residual functional capacity (RFC). After de novo review, we conclude that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Chaney v. Colvin, 812 F.3d 672, 676 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). We further conclude that the ALJ’s credibility findings are entitled to deference. See Casey v. Astrue, 503 F.3d 687, 696 (8th Cir. 2007) (explaining that if an ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, it is entitled to deference). And “[w]hile an ALJ does have a duty to develop the record, this duty is not never- ending . . . . The ALJ is required to order medical examinations and tests only if the medical records presented to him do not give sufficient medical evidence to determine whether the claimant is disabled.” McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 612 (8th Cir. 2011). Because the medical evidence in the record constituted sufficient evidence of Gilby’s RFC, the ALJ was not required to further develop the record before him.

We affirm the judgment. ______________________________

-2-

Reference

Status
Unpublished