Buckner v. Astrue
646 F.3d 549
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Buckner applied for disability insurance and SSI, alleging disability begin 08/29/2005 at age 33; claimed hypertension, sleep apnea, restless legs, headaches, anxiety, GERD, and cognitive limitations.
- Medical record shows hypertension with initially very high BP; later readings improved; obesity and GERD managed with meds; normal cardiac workups, and no persistent ischemia.
- Mental health history includes depression and anxiety diagnosed in 2005, with mostly normal psychological exams; antidepressant therapy reported as variably effective.
- Administrative record includes Buckner's Function Report and a disability questionnaire detailing daily activities and limitations; Buckner reported being able to care for family but requiring reminders and breaks.
- ALJ found severe impairments: hypertension, morbid obesity, degenerative disc disease, mild cardiomegaly; depression and anxiety found not severe under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(1).
- Two hearings were held; a vocational expert testified to jobs available in the national economy consistent with Dr. Hwang's limitations; Buckner’s credibility and third‑party statements were at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buckner's mental impairments are severe. | Buckner argues depression/anxiety have more than minimal impact. | ALJ found mental impairments not severe under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a; evidence supports mild limitations. | Not severe; substantial evidence supports ALJ’s finding. |
| Whether the ALJ properly assessed Buckner and girlfriend credibility. | ALJ failed to credit Buckner and girlfriend statements; misapplied Polaski factors. | ALJ considered daily activities, treatment, and lack of objective support; credibility properly evaluated. | Credibility properly assessed; no remand required. |
| Whether the VE's at-issue hypothetical tracks credible impairments. | Hypothetical omitted mild mental impairments and medication side effects. | Hypothetical captured concrete consequences of credible impairments and relied on Dr. Hwang. | VE testimony based on proper hypothetical; substantial evidence supports not disabled. |
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed Dr. Hwang's physical limitations. | Dr. Hwang's limitations should restrict Buckner's RFC. | ALJ gave weight to contrary record and found Dr. Hwang's explanations lacking. | ALJ's RFC supported by substantial evidence; not reversible error. |
| Whether Buckner's third‑party statements required remand. | Girlfriend’s statement should have been expressly weighed. | No remand; record shows ALJ considered corroborating evidence and balanced statements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836 (8th Cir. 1992) (Third-party statements may be considered; not always required to be explicit.)
- Lorenzen v. Chater, 71 F.3d 316 (8th Cir. 1995) (Third‑party testimony largely mediated by other evidence.)
- Willcockson v. Astrue, 540 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2008) (Remand not required when weight can be inferred from record.)
- Jackson v. Apfel, 162 F.3d 533 (8th Cir. 1998) (Mental limitations may be omitted from hypothetical if non‑severe.)
- Hulsey v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2010) (VE testimony based on plausible, credible impairments constitutes substantial evidence.)
- Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2005) (ALJ need not discuss every Polaski factor explicitly.)
- Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2009) (Polaski factors guide credibility; explicit discussion not always required.)
- Bradley v. Astrue, 528 F.3d 1113 (8th Cir. 2008) (Affirms ALJ's credibility within zone of choice.)