Katheryne Polter v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security Administration

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-2214
___________________________
Katheryne Polter
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security Administration
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: January 4, 2013
Filed: January 15, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Katheryne Polter appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review,
1The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

see Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1063-64 (8th Cir. 2012), we find no basis for
reversal. Specifically, we find no merit to Polter’s challenges to the administrative
law judge’s (ALJ’s) determinations as to physical and mental residual functional
capacity (RFC), see Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 794 (8th Cir. 2012)
(conclusory checkbox form has little evidentiary value when it provides little or no
elaboration and cites no medical evidence); Renstrom, 680 F.3d at 1064 (treating
physician’s opinion does not automatically control); or to the ALJ’s hypothetical to
the vocational expert, see Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 901-02 (8th Cir. 2011)
(hypothetical must capture concrete consequences of claimant’s deficiencies); cf.
Davis v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 2001) (rejecting contention that
hypothetical was flawed because it did not specify frequency of need to alternate
between sitting and standing, where hypothetical addressed claimant’s need to sit and
stand “at will”). The district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --