James Tippe v. Carolyn W. Colvin
669 F. App'x 332
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- James Tippe applied for SSDI and SSI in March 2011 alleging disability from October 31, 2008; he has a long history of cocaine and alcohol abuse and stopped using in July 2011.
- Initial denial found substance abuse was a contributing, material factor; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council remanded for additional consideration.
- Second ALJ decision (Oct. 6, 2014): found severe but non-listed mental impairments (anxiety, depressive, personality disorders); concluded disabled during period of substance abuse but substance abuse was material and thus bars benefits for that period.
- For post‑sobriety period, ALJ found an RFC for all exertional levels but limited to non‑fast‑paced, simple, routine tasks with minimal social interaction; vocational expert identified jobs (packager, warehouse worker) available in significant numbers.
- ALJ gave limited weight to two examining psychiatrists’ MSS checkbox opinions finding marked limitations, citing conclusory format, failure to address treatment noncompliance, and that ultimate disability determination is reserved to the Commissioner.
- District court affirmed; Eighth Circuit applied deferential review and affirmed, concluding substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings and credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to examining psychiatrists’ MSS (marked limitations) | The ALJ should have given controlling or greater weight to Drs. Kauer and Vora’s opinions showing marked limitations when sober | Opinions were conclusory checkbox forms, failed to address treatment noncompliance, and disability determination is reserved to the Commissioner | ALJ permissibly gave those opinions little/some weight; substantial evidence supports discounting them |
| Credibility of subjective symptom allegations | ALJ erred in discrediting Tippe’s reported limitations when sober | ALJ properly considered cognitive testing, noncompliance with treatment, and daily activities under Polaski factors | Credibility finding affirmed; ALJ’s assessment was supported by valid consideration of factors |
| Use of statements made during substance-abuse period to assess post‑sobriety functioning | ALJ improperly relied on statements made while Tippe was using substances to discount later functioning | Statements were relevant because claimant applied for benefits during that period and bore on credibility during later period | Use was appropriate; ALJ adequately evaluated impairments both with and without substance abuse |
| Materiality of substance abuse to disability | (Implicit) Challenge to ALJ’s materiality finding | ALJ and record show work losses due to relapses and VE testified excessive absences preclude competitive work | Any challenge is without merit; substantial evidence supports materiality finding |
Key Cases Cited
- House v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2007) (treating physician opinion controlling only if well‑supported and consistent with other substantial evidence)
- Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959 (8th Cir. 2010) (checklist, conclusory treating opinions may be properly discounted)
- Pate‑Fires v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 2009) (noncompliance may be excused if linked to impairments; requires evidence connecting noncompliance to limitations)
- Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 2016) (treating physician opinions may receive limited weight when conclusory or inconsistent with record)
- Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) (factors to consider when evaluating claimant’s subjective complaints)
- Welsh v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2014) (appellate standard of review for ALJ disability determinations)