Travis Adkerson v. Andrew Saul

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Travis Adkerson v. Andrew Saul

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-1046 ___________________________

Travis W. Adkerson

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Andrew Saul, Commissioner of SSA

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________

Submitted: June 29, 2021 Filed: July 2, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Travis Adkerson appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. We agree with the district court that substantial

1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. evidence in the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Vance v. Berryhill, 860 F.3d 1114, 1117 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review; Commissioner’s decision will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence in record as whole, where substantial evidence is enough that reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support decision). Specifically, we find that the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) findings discounting Adkerson’s alleged deficits in concentrating and adapting to work changes were supported by substantial evidence. Even if--as Adkerson argues--the mental status examination findings cited by the ALJ were not inconsistent with his subjective complaints, the ALJ also found that Adkerson’s treatment history and daily activities were inconsistent with his complaints. See Hamman v. Berryhill, 680 Fed. Appx. 493, 495 (8th Cir. 2017) (unpublished per curiam) (even if ALJ erred by citing lack of objective medical evidence in discrediting claimant’s complaints, reversal was not warranted, as ALJ’s findings that claimant’s treatment history and daily activities were inconsistent with alleged limitations provided substantial evidence to support adverse credibility determination).

The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________

-2-

Reference

Status
Unpublished