Charles Miller v. Carolyn W. Colvin
784 F.3d 472
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Miller applied for disability insurance benefits and SSI alleging disability from Dec. 7, 2007, due to a 1998 traumatic brain injury and a 2004 back injury; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council denied review.
- Treatment records showed the brain injury was repeatedly described as "stable" by treating physicians; Miller reported memory improvement with medication and activity including weightlifting and occasional exercise.
- Neuropsychological testing (Dr. Wells, 2004) found poor scores in some nonverbal skills but "average" memory and no major attention/concentration deficits; Dr. Wells thought Miller could work broadly.
- Back treatment included conservative care and a January 2005 surgery with reported major reduction in pain by February 2005; one treating surgeon released Miller to medium work or less.
- Consulting physicians (Drs. Cathcart and Rosamond) concluded Miller could perform light work with limited bending/stooping; treating sources (Dr. Bomar, chiropractor Dr. Smith) completed questionnaires asserting much greater limitations.
- ALJ gave little weight to opinions of Drs. Bomar, Smith, and Butt, found Miller had RFC for light work, and the district court and Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly discounted treating physician (Dr. Bomar) | ALJ should have given controlling/greater weight to treating opinion limiting to sedentary work | ALJ relied on lack of supporting diagnostic evidence after onset and conflicting records showing better function | Affirmed — substantial evidence supported giving Dr. Bomar little weight |
| Whether ALJ erred by discounting chiropractor (Dr. Smith) | Dr. Smith’s long-term observations warranted more weight | Chiropractor is not an acceptable medical source for disability determinations; opinion inconsistent with objective evidence | Affirmed — ALJ permissibly discounted Smith’s opinion |
| Weight given to examining psychiatrist (Dr. Butt) | ALJ should have credited Dr. Butt’s diagnoses and low GAF | Opinion based on single exam and contradicted by treating notes and neuropsych eval showing better memory/concentration | Affirmed — ALJ properly gave little weight to Dr. Butt |
| Whether ALJ failed to evaluate Dr. Downey’s statement endorsing Dr. Bomar | ALJ overlooked Dr. Downey’s affirmation of Bomar’s questionnaire | ALJ considered Dr. Downey’s clinical notes; her statement added nothing beyond Bomar’s opinion which was evaluated | Affirmed — no reversible error in ALJ’s consideration of Downey’s comment |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackburn v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 853 (8th Cir.) (standard of review and substantial-evidence framework)
- Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959 (8th Cir.) (permissible reasons to discount treating physician when inconsistent with other evidence)
- Cunningham v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496 (8th Cir.) (treating physician weight and requirements for controlling weight)
- Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958 (8th Cir.) (treating opinion does not automatically control; evaluate record as whole)
- McDade v. Astrue, 720 F.3d 994 (8th Cir.) (chiropractors are not acceptable medical sources for establishing disability)
- Brueggeman v. Barnhart, 348 F.3d 689 (8th Cir.) (GAF score implications regarding functional limitations)
- Wiese v. Astrue, 552 F.3d 728 (8th Cir.) (ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion regardless of source)
- Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700 (8th Cir.) (RFC can be characterized as a medical question)
- Cox v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 614 (8th Cir.) (final responsibility for RFC is an administrative determination)
- Brown v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 535 (8th Cir.) (medical source statement of disability is not dispositive)
- Roberts v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 466 (8th Cir.) (ALJ bears primary responsibility to assess RFC)