988 F.3d 1019
8th Cir.2021Background
- Amber Kraus applied in 2014 for DIB and SSI, alleging bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, asthma, back pain, and related limits.
- ALJ found an RFC for light work with environmental limits (no fumes/odors/concentrated heat or cold) and limitation to simple tasks/decisions.
- Treating physicians Dr. Duffy (psychiatry) and Dr. Kinberg (pulmonary/allergy) opined Kraus could not work; ALJ gave those opinions little weight as conclusory and inconsistent with treatment notes.
- State agency medical consultants (physical and psychological) were credited (some/great weight) and supported the ALJ’s RFC.
- Vocational expert testified jobs existed (cashier, router, counter clerk) for the RFC, but testified no competitive employment if nebulizer breaks (15–25 minutes) one–three times weekly were required.
- Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed; Eighth Circuit affirmed the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in weighing treating physicians’ opinions | Kraus: ALJ wrongly gave treating doctors little weight; their opinions should control | Commissioner: Treating opinions were conclusory, unsupported by objective findings and inconsistent with treatment notes | Affirmed — ALJ properly discounted conclusory treating opinions and incorporated supported evidence into RFC |
| Whether ALJ erred in relying on vocational expert hypotheticals | Kraus: VE’s first hypothetical omitted her need for frequent nebulizer treatments; second hypothetical (with breaks) precluded work and should control | Commissioner: RFC did not include frequent nebulizer breaks because record didn’t support them; ALJ may rely on VE’s answer to the RFC-consistent hypothetical | Affirmed — VE testimony based on RFC-supported hypothetical was substantial evidence; VE’s answer to the unsupported second hypothetical was not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969 (Eighth Circuit 2000) (RFC defined as what claimant can do despite limitations)
- Papesh v. Colvin, 786 F.3d 1126 (Eighth Circuit 2015) (treating physician may receive controlling weight if well-supported and consistent)
- Tindell v. Barnhart, 444 F.3d 1002 (Eighth Circuit 2006) (when non-treating opinions may outweigh treating opinions)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (Supreme Court 2019) (standard for substantial evidence)
- Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801 (Eighth Circuit 2004) (treating physicians’ conclusory inability-to-work opinions are not controlling)
- Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838 (Eighth Circuit 2009) (ALJ may discount treating opinion inconsistent with clinical notes)
- Ponder v. Colvin, 770 F.3d 1190 (Eighth Circuit 2014) (state-agency consultants can be entitled to greater weight in some circumstances)
- Haggard v. Apfel, 175 F.3d 591 (Eighth Circuit 1999) (VE testimony based on properly framed hypothetical constitutes substantial evidence)