Cindy Ponder v. Carolyn W. Colvin
770 F.3d 1190
8th Cir.2014Background
- Cindy Ponder applied for SSDI, claiming disability beginning January 11, 2005; her insured status expired March 31, 2010.
- Before March 31, 2010, medical records show routine care: post‑brain cyst surgery recovery (2002), work from 2003–2005, and several 2009–Mar. 2010 visits noting ambulatory status, no acute distress, and no work restrictions.
- Many diagnoses Ponder later relied on (fibromyalgia, COPD, sarcoidosis) were not recorded until 2010–2011, after her insured date.
- Treating physician Dr. Yelvington completed a Nov. 2011 RFC questionnaire asserting severe limits (e.g., sitting/standing <30 minutes; <2 hours total workday), and dated limitations back to Jan. 2009.
- Independent medical reviewers and testifying medical experts concluded Ponder could perform sedentary work as of Mar. 31, 2010; no contemporaneous treating restrictions existed.
- ALJ found Ponder had severe impairments but retained sedentary RFC as of Mar. 31, 2010; Appeals Council and district court affirmed. Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports ALJ's finding that Ponder could perform sedentary work as of insured date | Ponder: treating physician's 2011 RFC shows disabling limitations effective no later than Jan. 2009 | Commissioner: contemporaneous records, treating notes, consulting opinions, treatment effectiveness, and daily activities support sedentary RFC | Held: substantial evidence supports ALJ; claimant could perform sedentary work as of Mar. 31, 2010 |
| Whether treating physician's post‑insured RFC controls | Ponder: treating status and opinion merit controlling weight | Commissioner: treating opinion conflicted with contemporaneous records and independent opinions, so not controlling | Held: ALJ properly discounted treating opinion due to inconsistency with record |
| Relevance of later diagnoses and symptoms (post‑insured) | Ponder: later diagnoses show long‑standing disability | Commissioner: post‑insured diagnoses do not establish disability before insured date | Held: later diagnoses insufficient to show disability before insured expiration |
| Whether claimant's daily activities undermine disability claim | Ponder: household activities are not dispositive | Commissioner: extensive daily activities, when combined with medical evidence, undercut total disability claim | Held: ALJ permissibly relied on daily activities as part of substantial‑evidence analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Pyland v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 1998) (claimant must be disabled before insured date to receive DIB)
- Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of de novo review of district court affirmance)
- Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2010) (substantial‑evidence standard explained)
- Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2012) (treating physician opinion not controlling when inconsistent with other substantial evidence)
- Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) (factors for evaluating subjective complaints)
- Howe v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 835 (8th Cir. 2007) (ALJ may discount treating opinion when conflicting record exists)
- Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2002) (impairments controllable by treatment are not disabling)
- Roberson v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2007) (daily activities can support denial where extensive)