Libby Rivet v. Carolyn W. Colvin


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Morris S. Arnold and Diana E. Murphy (UNPUBLISHED) [4444951] [15-3330]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3330 ___________________________ Libby Rivet lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: August 31, 2016 Filed: September 6, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Libby Rivet appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. We agree with the 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Appellate Case: 15-3330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2016 Entry ID: 4444951 district court that the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) adverse decision is supported by substantial evidenced on the record as a whole. See Ash v. Colvin, 812 F.3d 686, 689-90 (8th Cir. 2016). Specifically, we conclude that the ALJ gave several valid reasons for discounting the opinion of treating physician Lucy Wibbenmeyer, see Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 897-98 (8th Cir. 2011) (treating physician’s opinion does not automatically control, as record must be evaluated as whole); and for finding the testimony of Mr. Rivet’s wife not entirely credible, see Mabry v. Colvin, 815 F.3d 386, 389 (8th Cir. 2016) (this court defers to ALJ’s credibility findings if they are supported by good reasons and substantial evidence). We also conclude that, even assuming the ALJ did not consider the letter from one of Mr. Rivet’s former bosses, substantial evidence nonetheless supported the adverse decision. See Chaney v. Colvin, 812 F.3d 672, 678 (8th Cir. 2016) (even if ALJ failed to consider letter, decision would still be supported by substantial evidence).2 The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ 2 Because the ALJ alternatively found, based on a vocational expert’s testimony, that Mr. Rivet could perform other unskilled light jobs that were available in substantial numbers in Iowa and nationally--a finding not challenged on appeal--we see no need to discuss Mr. Rivet’s challenge to the ALJ’s determination that he could perform a past job that qualified as past relevant work. -2- Appellate Case: 15-3330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2016 Entry ID: 4444951

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?