Gregory Smith v. Carolyn W. Colvin
756 F.3d 621
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Smith applied for DIB with protective filing date May 15, 2008, claiming PTSD, arthritis, headaches, hearing problems, back/knee pain, and acid reflux; he alleges disability since Feb 9, 2005 with symptoms including daily back pain, functional impairment, and focus difficulties.
- He previously worked as truck driver, bus driver, laborer, machine operator, and forklift operator; served in Army National Guard.
- ALJ denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed; Seventh? no; this court affirms.
- VA treatment records show PTSD/depression, back/knee pain, degenerative disc disease, and cognitive issues; VA disability ratings exist.
- Hearing before ALJ Feb 25, 2010; VE testified to two jobs; subsequent medical opinions included Dr. Felkins’s MOS and treating physicians Amison and Cao; ALJ ultimately found RFC for light work with limitations.
- Court affirms denial of benefits as supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RFC adequately reflects Smith’s limitations. | Smith argues RFC underweights treating opinions. | ALK weight to state agency and Felkins; treating opinions less persuasive. | RFC supported by substantial evidence; not reversible. |
| Whether ALJ properly discounted treating physicians Amison and Cao. | Amison/Cao supported by extensive VA records; not properly discounted. | Opinions contradicted by other evidence; supported by objective record. | ALJ properly weighed treating sources; allowed limited weight. |
| Whether VA disability rating binding on SSA and credibility assessment proper. | VA rating should be given greater weight; credibility undermined by VA status. | VA rating not binding; credibility assessed by extensive evidence. | VA rating given limited weight; credibility properly determined. |
| Whether hypothetical to VE accurately described Smith’s limitations. | Hypothetical lacked full impairment description from treating sources. | Hypothetical properly framed to credible impairments. | Hypothetical properly worded; adequate for VE testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Teague v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 611 (8th Cir. 2011) (substantial evidence review standard; deference to ALJ findings)
- Jernigan v. Sullivan, 948 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir. 1991) (unemployment status affects credibility but is not dispositive)
- Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575 (8th Cir. 2006) (VA disability rating not binding on SSA)
- Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2000) (treating physicians' opinions may be discounted when outweighed by better evidence)
- Forte v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2004) (hypothetical must include only credible impairments)
- Davis v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2001) (substantial evidence standard and deferential review)