No. 19-3337 ___________________________

Amber L. Kraus

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Defendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________

Submitted: November 17, 2020 Filed: February 19, 2021 ____________ Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge.

The Commissioner of Social Security Administration denied Amber L. Kraus’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She sued the Commissioner, asserting that the denial was contrary to law and not supported by substantial evidence. The district court 1 affirmed the denial of benefits. Kraus appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

I.

Kraus applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income in 2014. She alleged disability due to bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, a bad back, asthma, impulse control disorder, panic attacks, and arthritis. The Commissioner denied her application initially and on reconsideration, at steps four and five.2

Kraus requested a hearing before an administrative law judge. She testified she was unable to work due to her respiratory issues and mental health disorders.

1 The Honorable Susan M. Bazis, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. 2 A five-step process determines whether a claimant is disabled:

At the first step, the claimant must establish that he has not engaged in substantial gainful activity. The second step requires that the claimant prove he has a severe impairment that significantly limits his physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. If, at the third step, the claimant shows that his impairment meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations, the analysis stops and the claimant is automatically found disabled and is entitled to benefits. If the claimant cannot carry this burden, however, step four requires that the claimant prove he lacks the RFC to perform his past relevant work. Finally, if the claimant establishes that he cannot perform his past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at the fifth step to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. Gonzales v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).

-2- She testified she was on numerous medications, including a nebulizer treatment every three to four hours. She also testified to her limited work history and inability to hold regular employment in the past.

The ALJ formulated a residual functional capacity (RFC). See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The RFC described what Kraus “is able to do despite limitations caused by all of [her] impairments.” Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (alteration added), citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). After “careful consideration of the entire record,” the ALJ determined:

[Kraus] has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except she is able to perform work away from fumes, odors, astringents, and other types of items commonly associated with someone who has a breathing problem. She is capable of performing simple work