Ronnie Cates v. Carolyn W. Colvin


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Raymond W. Gruender, Duane Benton and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED) [4350329] [15-2071]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2071 ___________________________ Ronnie Euguene Cates lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Batesville ____________ Submitted: December 22, 2015 Filed: December 29, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Appellate Case: 15-2071 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Entry ID: 4350329 Ronnie Cates appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, after a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Following careful de novo review, and for the reasons explained below, we conclude that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the denial of Cates’s applications. See Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1091, 1093 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). Cates argues that the ALJ erred in failing to find that Cates’s foot pain was a severe impairment. This argument fails: among other things, Cates did not allege any physical impairment in his applications; he sought no medical treatment during the three years preceding his applications; he mentioned no physical complaints or limitations to any care provider, or in disability reports, until almost two years after his applications; and he was able to perform a variety of daily activities. See Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1039 (8th Cir. 2001); Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842, 851 (8th Cir. 2007). Cates also argues that the ALJ’s physical residual functional capacity (RFC) determination was not supported by substantial evidence, because the record lacked any opinion from a consultative or treating provider on Cates’s physical impairments. The ALJ had no duty to obtain any such opinion, however, because Cates’s physical functioning was not at issue, given the bases that he alleged for disability in his applications and the record that was made before the ALJ. See Landess v. Weinberger, 490 F.2d 1187, 1189 (8th Cir. 1974). The physical RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence, as the ALJ properly considered and weighed available medical and other relevant evidence, and based the RFC determination on independent review of the medical records, the care providers’ treatment notes and 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Appellate Case: 15-2071 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Entry ID: 4350329 lack of functional restrictions, Cates’s work history and record of treatment, and expert opinions. See Tellez v. Barnhart, 403 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 2005). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -3- Appellate Case: 15-2071 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Entry ID: 4350329

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?