Opinion
No. 08-3759.
Submitted: September 22, 2009.
Filed: October 13, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
Joseph W. Cornell, Wayne Young, Wayne Young Law Firm, P.A., argued, Fayetteville, AR, for Appellant.
Claude Shackelford Hawkins, Jr., U.S. Attorney's Office, Fort Smith, AR, Ruben Montemayor, Assistant Regional Counsel, Tina M. Waddell, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel, Dallas, TX, argued, for Appellee.
Before BYE, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]
Gregory L. Walton appeals the district court's order affirming the denial of Walton's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Walton claimed disability with an onset date of April 1, 2005, due to back pain/injuries. An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Walton could still perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy based upon a vocational expert's (VE's) response to a hypothetical question which took into account Walton's restrictions and limitations, including his complete inability to stoop.
The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the Report and Recommendations of the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United Stales Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
In the district court, Walton generally argued the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and specifically argued the ALJ's decision should be reversed because Social Security Regulation 96-9p states a "complete inability to stoop . . . would usually [require] a finding that the individual is disabled." (Emphasis added). Walton did not renew those two arguments on appeal, and they are therefore deemed waived. See Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008). In addition, we need not address the two new arguments Walton raises on appeal because they were not raised in the district court. See Misner v. Chater, 79 F.3d 745, 746 (8th Cir. 1996).
On appeal, Walton contends (1) the VE's opinions were inconsistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and therefore required the ALJ to conduct a supplemental hearing or submit additional interrogatories to the VE to clarity or explain the conflict, and (2) the AU did not afford proper weight to the opinions of a treating physician. Even were we to address these arguments, we would affirm because (1) the record shows the VE clarified the conflicts between her testimony and the DOT, and (2) the record supports the ALJ's declination to give the treating physician's opinions controlling weight. See Pirtle v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir. 2007) (indicating a treating physician's opinion need not be given controlling weight when there are inconsistencies between the physician's notes and his or her residual functional capacity assessment); see also Thomas v. Sullivan, 928 F.2d 255, 259 (8th Cir. 1991) ("When the treating physician's opinion consists of nothing more than conclusory statements, the opinion is not entitled to greater weight than any other physician's opinion.").
We therefore affirm the district court.