Boettcher v. Astrue
652 F.3d 860
8th Cir.2011Background
- Boettcher applied for SSI under Title XVI; claim denied at initial review and reconsideration, hearing held before an ALJ with testimony from Boettcher, his mother, and a vocational expert.
- ALJ applied the five-step disability analysis; found Boettcher non-disabled at Step Five, with RFC to perform sedentary work with option to alternate sitting/standing, after finding severe impairments but not meeting a listed impairment.
- Boettcher’s past work as meat trimmer, production welder, maintenance mechanic, and construction worker was found not to be within his RFC; vocational evidence supported other work in the economy.
- District Court reversed, holding the ALJ erred by discounting Boettcher’s testimony, which would enlarge RFC to include lying down and frequent unscheduled breaks, leading to a disability determination.
- The Commissioner appealed; the Eighth Circuit majority reversed the district court and remanded to affirm the Commissioner’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step III listing comparison | Boettcher's impairments meet/listing criteria due to spine disorders. | Record shows no listing match for spine disorders; substantial evidence supports a non-listing result. | No error; substantial evidence supports no listing equality. |
| Credibility of Boettcher's subjective complaints | ALJ failed to credibly assess pain and functional limits. | ALJ properly discounted without patent inconsistencies and with Polaski factors. | ALJ’s credibility finding upheld; reasons sufficiently supported by record. |
| RFC sufficiently accounts for limitations | RFC should include need to lie down and frequent breaks based on credible pain testimony. | RFC adequately reflects ability to perform sedentary work with position changes. | RFC supported by substantial evidence; did not need to include unsubstantiated limits. |
| VE hypothetical incorporating all impairments | VE testimony insufficient because hypothetical did not include all asserted limitations. | Hypothetical appropriately captured record’s impairments. | VE testimony based on proper RFC; not required to include ignored limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) (credibility evaluation requires consideration of multiple factors)
- Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir. 2005) (pain testimony may be credible even without full objective support)
- Juszczyk v. Astrue, 542 F.3d 626 (8th Cir. 2008) (deferring to credibility determination when supported by substantial evidence)
- Holmstrom v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2001) (RFC must account for all credible impairments in an individual’s capacity)
- Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2010) (VE testimony must reflect all proven impairments to be substantial evidence)
- Snead v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2004) (adequate development of record; careful consideration of impairments in hypotheticals)
- Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798 (8th Cir. 2005) (hypotheticals must capture concrete consequences of impairments)
- Forehand v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2004) (consider quality and sustainability of daily activities in RFC)