James Cuthrell v. Michael J. Astrue
702 F.3d 1114
8th Cir.2013Background
- Cuthrell was denied disability benefits; district court upheld the denial; he appeals arguing the ALJ erred by not using the psychiatric review technique (PRT), by ignoring important medical evidence, and by applying the wrong standard to evaluate residual functional capacity.
- Cuthrell had motorcycle and car accidents, head injury, and a leg length discrepancy; medical visits began around 2002 with multiple complaints.
- In 2006 he applied for disability (onset July 1, 2006) and was denied; he then applied again in 2008 (alleged onset January 1, 2008).
- A 2009 therapist opined he could not perform many normal work functions consistently and could rarely lift 15 pounds; at the hearing he testified to cutting work to 25 hours/week and lifting limits inconsistent with the therapist.
- The ALJ found two severe impairments: history of right leg injury and a closed head injury; it deemed therapist conclusions inconsistent with his own admissions and found him not credible.
- This court reverses and remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ was required to perform the PRT. | Cuthrell; the PRT must be used when mental impairment present. | Cuthrell; neurological injury not mental impairment; PRT not required. | PRT required due to severe mental impairment; remand for PRT. |
| Whether failure to complete the PRT warrants reversal notwithstanding credibility findings. | ALJ erred by not completing the PRT. | Harmless error if no credible mental impairment. | Not harmless here; PRT must be completed on remand. |
| Whether the ALJ properly evaluated medical evidence and residual functional capacity. | ERR in evaluating evidence under PRT framework. | Application of standard appropriate; but PRT must precede RC limits. | Remand to reevaluate under PRT; underlying issues unresolved. |
| Whether the court should address evidence/evidence-based RC on remand. | Remand should reconsider with PRT in mind. | Need not address evidence aspects until PRT is applied. | On remand, reevaluate with PRT and complete RC assessment. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of district court; substantial evidence standard applied to ALJ decision)
- Juszczyk v. Astrue, 542 F.3d 626 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing legal conclusions and procedures)
- Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2011) (consider evidence supporting and detracting from ALJ's decision)
- Medhaug v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2009) (two inconsistent positions; court affirms if one aligns with ALJ findings)