Bradley Landreth v. Nancy A. Berryhill

Bradley W. Landreth appeals the district court’s1 well-reasoned order affirming

the Commissioner’s determination that he is not entitled to disability insurance

1The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Court Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

benefits and supplemental security income. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, this court affirms.

Having reviewed the record de novo, this court agrees with the district court

that the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Milam v. Colvin,

794 F.3d 978, 983 (8th Cir. 2015). At Step 3, a “claimant bears the burden of

demonstrating that his impairment matches all the specified criteria of a listing.”

McDade v. Astrue, 720 F.3d 994, 1001 (8th Cir. 2013). Although Landreth provided

evidence of some symptoms consistent with a compromised or compressed nerve

root—a requirement of Listing § 1.04A—the record does not support that his nerve

root was actually compromised or compressed. Contrary to Landreth’s argument that

Brown v. Colvin controls, the ALJ here did not cite the wrong listing. See Brown v.

Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939-40 (8th Cir. 2016).

The ALJ did not err in summarily concluding Landreth did not meet or equal

a listed impairment because he “did not allege or argue that any of [his] impairment[s]

met or equaled a listing.” As this court has said, “There is no error when an ALJ fails

to explain why an impairment does not equal one of the listed impairments as long

as the overall conclusion is supported by the record.” Boettcher v. Astrue, 652 F.3d

860, 863 (8th Cir. 2011).

The ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination was also supported by

the record. “The Commissioner must determine a claimant’s RFC based on all of the

relevant evidence.” McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2000). The ALJ

considered Landreth’s medical records, the observations of his treating physicians,

and his own testimony before arriving at a determination supported by substantial

evidence.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.