Donald Fentress v. Carolyn W. Colvin
854 F.3d 1016
8th Cir.2017Background
- Claimant Donald Fentress applied for DIB and SSI alleging onset in 2005 (later also alleged 2009); claims were denied administratively, remanded, and consolidated across proceedings.
- After multiple ALJ decisions and Appeals Council review, the Appeals Council found Fentress disabled beginning August 24, 2012, but not disabled from September 22, 2005 through August 23, 2012. That decision became the Commissioner’s final decision.
- Fentress suffers from multiple medical conditions (including COPD/asthma, coronary artery disease, hepatitis C, degenerative disc disease, and depression) and submitted treatment records and a treating-physician opinion that he could not sustain gainful employment due to pain and fatigue.
- The Appeals Council assigned little weight to the treating physician Dr. Bradford Waters’s opinion, citing its brief treatment relationship and inconsistencies with contemporaneous objective exams, Fentress’s own reports, and a consulting examiner’s findings.
- The Appeals Council assessed an RFC for modified light work prior to August 24, 2012, and relied on a vocational expert to find substantial jobs existed in the national economy for that RFC.
- The district court affirmed; the appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RFC finding (modified light work) before Aug. 24, 2012 is supported by substantial evidence | Fentress: RFC was improper because ALJ/Appeals Council improperly discounted treating physician Dr. Waters’s opinion that claimant could not sustain work | Commissioner: Properly assigned little weight to Dr. Waters due to short treating relationship and inconsistency with other medical records, claimant statements, and consulting examiner | Held: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports the RFC and the decision to discount Dr. Waters’s opinion |
| Whether the treating physician’s opinion must be given controlling weight | Fentress: Treating opinion should be entitled to substantial weight and not discounted | Commissioner: May discount when opinion is inconsistent with better or more thorough evidence and claimant noncompliance/context weaken it | Held: Treating opinion permissibly discounted where inconsistent with objective exams, consulting opinion, and other record evidence |
| Whether claimant’s subjective pain reports required a different result | Fentress: Pain and fatigue testimony establish inability to perform sustained work | Commissioner: Credibility determinations were reasonable and supported by evidence (normal exams, daily activities, treatment response) | Held: Credibility and weight determinations fall within ALJ’s reasonable "zone of choice" and are supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether substantial evidence standard was met on review | Fentress: Some evidence supports contrary conclusion, so reversal warranted | Commissioner: Record as a whole supports decision; appellate court should not reweigh evidence | Held: Substantial-evidence standard satisfied; appellate court affirms decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2005) (five-step evaluation and factors for weighing medical opinions)
- Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959 (8th Cir. 2010) (treating physician opinion may be discounted when other assessments are better supported)
- Dykes v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 2000) (RFC must be supported by some medical evidence)
- Vester v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2005) (deference to Commissioner’s credibility determinations when supported by good reasons)
- Owen v. Astrue, 551 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2008) (ALJ decisions within a reasonable "zone of choice" will be upheld)