Bobby Pipkin v. Michael J. Astrue

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Lavenski R. Smith and Steven M. Colloton. --(UNPUBLISHED)-- [4067554] [12-3787]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-3787
___________________________
Bobby Pipkin
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner, Social Security Commission
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro
____________
Submitted: July 5, 2013
Filed: August 22, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 12-3787

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/22/2013 Entry ID: 4067554

Bobby Pipkin appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review of the
record, see Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 793 (8th Cir. 2012), and careful
consideration of Pipkin’s arguments,2 we find no basis for reversal. Specifically,
because the administrative law judge (ALJ) gave several valid reasons for his
credibility determination, it is entitled to deference. See Renstrom v. Astrue, 680
F.3d 1057, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012). Further, the ALJ properly discounted the opinions
of a consulting physician and psychologist as to Pipkin’s residual functional capacity
(RFC), see Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 888 (8th Cir. 2006) (opinion of
consulting physician who examines claimant once does not generally constitute
substantial evidence); and the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by some
medical evidence, as required, as it is consistent with the medical findings and
diagnostic test results in the treatment records, see Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963,
971-72 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ is responsible for determining RFC based on all relevant
evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others,
and claimant’s own description of his limitations). Finally, because Pipkin bases his
challenge to the ALJ’s hypothetical on his other arguments, this challenge necessarily
fails as well. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________

1

The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Eastern 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

Pipkin has waived several issues on appeal by not addressing them in his brief,
such as the finding that certain of his allegedly disabling impairments were not
severe. See Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 n.2 (8th Cir. 2006).
-2-

Appellate Case: 12-3787

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/22/2013 Entry ID: 4067554