Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Henrietta Westbrook v. Kenneth S. Apfel, 98-2136 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 98-2136 Visitors: 44
Filed: Feb. 02, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-2136 _ Henrietta S. Westbrook, * * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of * Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellee. * _ Submitted: December 18, 1998 Filed: February 2, 1999 _ Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Henrietta S. Westbrook applied for Social Security Supplemental Secu
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 98-2136 ___________ Henrietta S. Westbrook, * * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of * Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: December 18, 1998 Filed: February 2, 1999 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Henrietta S. Westbrook applied for Social Security Supplemental Security Income benefits, claiming she is disabled by bronchitis, heart disease, an arthritic hip, and chronic pain. After a hearing, the administrative law judge denied her application, finding that Westbrook, who was 48 years old at the time, has severe impairments that would probably prevent her from performing her prior jobs, but has the residual functional capacity to perform a wide range of at least sedentary jobs. Westbrook then filed this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision. The district court1 in a thorough opinion concluded the ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. Westbrook appeals, arguing the ALJ failed to consider her hip problem in combination with her other impairments, failed to properly evaluate her non-exertional pain limitations, made an unfounded assessment of her credibility, posed inadequate hypothetical questions to the vocational expert regarding her residual functional capacity, and made improper judgments on medical issues. After careful review of the administrative record, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 1 The HONORABLE CATHERINE D. PERRY, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2-
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer