Dan Gieseke v. Carolyn Colvin
770 F.3d 1186
8th Cir.2014Background
- Gieseke has a long history of low back pain aggravated by a 2006 work injury and last worked in October 2008.
- Gieseke applied for Social Security disability insurance and supplemental security income alleging back, dizziness, and leg problems.
- An ALJ found severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, obesity, and history of substance abuse, and assessed a light RFC with various limitations and a cane for standing.
- The ALJ concluded Gieseke could perform unskilled light jobs (cashier, security guard, usher) in sufficient numbers in the national economy and in Iowa, rendering him not disabled.
- Gieseke's treating physician, Dr. Bollinger, provided more restrictive sedentary limitations, but the ALJ gave them no weight.
- The district court and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding substantial evidence supported the ALJ's RFC and disability determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ erred in not giving controlling weight to Dr. Bollinger | Gieseke argues Bollinger’s sedentary limits are controlling | Gieseke asserts the ALJ should adopt Bollinger’s more restrictive findings | No error; ALJ’s weight accorded to Bollinger was supported by evidence and others contradicted Bollinger |
| Whether Grid rules required disability despite a light RFC | Grids require a disabling sedentary RFC if applicable | RFC supported light work; grids not triggered | Not disability under grids; ALJ properly found RFC to perform light work |
| Whether the VE testimony conflicted with the DOT and required remand | VE testimony based on one-armed work reduces jobs creating DOT conflict | DOT provides generic descriptions; VE can adjust numbers for limitations | No DOT conflict; VE testimony properly supported by Welsh framework |
| Whether substantial evidence supports the RFC and existence of viable jobs | RFC insufficient to perform any work due to limitations | Evidence supports ability to perform cashier, security guard, usher with cane | Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC and availability of jobs |
Key Cases Cited
- Welsh v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for substantial evidence and VE conflicts)
- House v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2007) (treating physician opinions—controlling weight if well-supported)
- Cox v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2007) (VE testimony must reflect correctly phrased hypothetical)
- Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2004) (proper evaluation of RFC and step-five evidence)
- Wheeler v. Apfel, 224 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2000) (DOT job descriptions provide generic ranges; VE may adjust numbers)