Dwain Bagwell v. Commissioner, Social Security
916 F.3d 1117
8th Cir.2019Background
- In December 2014, Dwain Bagwell applied for SSA disability benefits alleging intellectual deficits, low education, slow learning, and memory problems; the claim was denied initially and on reconsideration.
- At administrative hearing the ALJ found three severe impairments: arthropathies, obesity, and depressive disorder, but concluded the impairments (alone or combined) did not meet disability standards.
- Psychological evidence included: consultative examiner Dr. Vickie Caspall (found mild major depressive disorder and not intellectually disabled) and treating evaluator Dr. Herman Clements (diagnosed bipolar disorder and opined marked mental impairments).
- The ALJ credited Dr. Caspall over Dr. Clements, finding Clements relied on Bagwell’s subjective reports without testing for malingering and noting Bagwell’s conditions appeared controllable with medication.
- The ALJ assessed Bagwell’s residual functional capacity as capable of light, unskilled work with restrictions and relied on vocational expert testimony to find jobs available; Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed.
- Bagwell appealed to the Eighth Circuit arguing among other points that the ALJ erred in weighing medical opinions and in failing to find Listing 12.05C intellectual disability; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed conflicting mental-health opinions | Bagwell: ALJ should have credited treating/examining opinions (Dr. Clements) showing marked impairments | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly credited consultative examiner (Dr. Caspall) and reasonably discounted Clements for lack of testing and noncompliance with SSA standards | Affirmed — substantial-evidence supports ALJ’s choice between experts |
| Whether the ALJ erred by not finding Listing 12.05C intellectual disability met | Bagwell: record supports Listing 12.05C (subaverage IQ, adaptive deficits, onset before 22, plus additional impairment) | Commissioner: record lacks required adaptive deficits and work-related limitations; IQ evidence disputed and other criteria unmet | Affirmed — ALJ not required to address unsupported listings; criteria not met |
| Whether failure to consider certain prior-record opinions or other examiners was reversible error | Bagwell: ALJ omitted consideration of some opinions and prior-application records | Commissioner: omitted materials were not part of the ALJ’s record or were properly discounted; ALJ discussed relevant evidence and credibility | Affirmed — no reversible error; overall conclusion supported by record |
| Whether medication access and side-effect issues required different disability finding | Bagwell: financial/medication access and need imply greater limitations | Commissioner: ALJ acknowledged access issues and noted clinics/free medication and limited prescriptions; conditions appeared controllable | Affirmed — ALJ’s treatment of medication and impairment control was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Ash v. Colvin, 812 F.3d 686 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard: affirm if Commissioner’s decision supported by substantial evidence)
- McNamara v. Astrue, 590 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 2010) (substantial-evidence review in social-security appeals)
- McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 2000) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Boettcher v. Astrue, 652 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 2011) (no error when ALJ omits detailed listing discussion if overall conclusion supported by record)