United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-1559 ___________________________ John Wyatt lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: October 6, 2023 Filed: October 12, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

John Wyatt appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. We agree with the court that substantial evidence in the record The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Kraus v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). We find that the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not err in declining to include more restrictive limitations regarding interactions with coworkers and supervisors in Wyatt’s residual functional capacity (RFC) determination. See Swink v. Saul, 931 F.3d 765, 770 (8th Cir. 2019) (ALJ did not err in failing to include in RFC certain limitations set forth in medical opinion, as record contained substantial evidence that supported RFC assessment). The ALJ was not required to adopt the exact limitations set forth in the opinions she found persuasive, and substantial evidence supported the RFC findings regarding Wyatt’s abilities to interact with others in the workplace. See Webster v. Kijakazi, 19 F.4th 715, 719 (5th Cir. 2021) (while ALJ did not adopt opinion verbatim which limited claimant to minimal interaction with others, ALJ incorporated opinion by limiting claimant to occasional public contact, and RFC assessment was supported by substantial evidence); Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019, 1024 (8th Cir. 2002) (substantial evidence supported RFC determination based on medical records, consultant and other medical opinions, and some aspects of claimant’s testimony).

The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________

-2-