[Unpublished]
Sandra Byrd appeals the district courts
1
order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We agree with the court that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Twyford v. Commr, Soc. Sec. Admin., 929 F.3d 512, 516 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo review of district courts judgment; this court will affirm unless Commissioners findings are unsupported by substantial evidence or result from legal error).
Specifically, we conclude the record supports the administrative law judges (ALJs) finding that Byrds impairments did not meet the mental disorder listings, see id. at 517 (ALJs finding that listing was not met was supported by treatment notes and claimants daily activities); and the ALJs determination of Byrds residual functional capacity, see Mabry v. Colvin, 815 F.3d 386, 391-92 (8th Cir. 2016) (ALJs RFC determination was supported by medical records, state agency physicians’ and examiners opinions, and claimants improvement with medication). The ALJ did not err in considering the examining psychologists opinion, see id. at 391 (noting that ALJ need not accept entirety of examiners opinion, but must weigh all evidence); properly evaluated Byrds subjective complaints, see Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082, 1087 (8th Cir. 2016) (claimants daily activities and improvement with medication were properly considered in finding her allegations not fully credible); and did not commit reversible error in failing to specifically discuss the statements from Byrds parents, see Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549, 560 (8th Cir. 2011) (no reversible error in failing to address claimants girlfriends statement, as ALJ sufficiently assessed claimants credibility and same evidence that discredited his allegations also discredited hers). Finally, we find that the Appeals Council did not err in declining to consider the opinion of Byrds treating psychiatric nurse. See Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1094 (8th Cir. 2012) (treating physicians opinion submitted to Appeals Council that did not cite supporting clinical data did not lead to conclusion that ALJ would have reached different result).
The judgment is affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
PER CURIAM.