David Perks v. Michael J. Astrue
687 F.3d 1086
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Perks applied for disability benefits and SSI alleging disability since April 2, 1998; initial and reconsideration denials followed.
- ALJ held a hearing on April 7, 2009 and found Perks not disabled; RFC determined to allow six hours sitting, two hours standing/walking with positions changes limited, based on record.
- Dr. Honghiran provided functional limitations (sit four hours, stand/walk two hours) but the ALJ found inconsistencies with his own recommendation for desk work.
- Perks submitted new evidence to the Appeals Council after the ALJ decision; Council denied review, finding no basis to change the ALJ’s decision.
- Court reviewed whether substantial evidence supported RFC and whether Appeals Council erred in handling new evidence; ultimately affirmed.
- MRI report argued to be new evidence, but court found it cumulative; treating physician Dr. Russell’s opinion was given substantial weight but not altering the RFC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFC supported by substantial evidence? | Perks argues RFC inconsistent with Dr. Honghiran and record. | ALJ properly weighed evidence; could rely on overall record to determine RFC. | Yes; ALJ’s six-hour sitting RFC supported by substantial evidence. |
| Appeals Council’s consideration of new evidence? | Council failed to consider all evidence, undermining decision. | Council reviewed new material and denial stands; record as a whole remains substantial. | Yes; district court's affirmation affirmed; new/medical evidence did not alter substantial-evidence support. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. 2007) (RFC medical question; burden on claimant to prove disability)
- McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605 (8th Cir. 2011) (RFC supported by medical evidence; agency deference urged)
- Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2004) (use of medical records to support RFC; credibility framework)
- Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798 (8th Cir. 2005) (inconsistent physician opinions deserve less deference)
- Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211 (8th Cir. 2001) (court may affirm if two inconsistent records support the ruling)