
    Sabrina A. WAGONER Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant-Appellee
    No. 16-3954
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 5, 2017
    Filed: July 11, 2017
    
      Matthew J. Keteham, Noland & Caddell, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Fatima Shah, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Sabrina A. Wagoner appeals the district court’s order affirming an unfavorable decision on her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, see Igo v. Colvin, 839 F.3d 724, 728 (8th Cir. 2016), we agree with the district court that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) weighing of the physician-opinion evidence on Ms. Wagoner’s residual functional capacity (RFC), see Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013) (RFC determination must be based on all relevant evidence—medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of her limitations—and must be supported by some medical evidence); Johnson v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 991, 994 (8th Cir. 2011) (form consisting of series of check marks assessing RFC, which is determination for ALJ to make, amounts to conelusory opinion that may be discounted if contradicted by other objective medical evidence); Charles v. Barnhart, 375 F.3d 777, 783 (8th Cir. 2004) (generally when consulting physician examines claimant only once, opinion is not considered substantial evidence). Because the ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s (VE’s) response to the first hypothetical that the ALJ posed, which was consistent with the ALJ’s RFC findings, see Gieseke v. Colvin, 770 F.3d 1186, 1189 (8th Cir. 2014), we find no merit to Ms. Wagoner’s argument concerning the VE’s testimony. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 
      
      . The Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western 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).
     