Janet Chesser v. Nancy A. Berryhill
858 F.3d 1161
8th Cir.2017Background
- Janet Chesser applied for SSA disability benefits alleging mental impairments (bipolar disorder, anxiety, PTSD, borderline personality) and other conditions; alleged onset Dec. 15, 2011.
- ALJ held a hearing; Chesser testified about severe cognitive and social limitations, partial improvement with treatment, and incomplete medication due to cost.
- ALJ found Chesser capable of light work with limits: no rapid repetitive wrist motion; only incidental interpersonal contact; tasks learnable by demonstration/repetition within 30 days; few variables; simple, direct, concrete supervision.
- ALJ gave little weight to treating psychiatrist Dr. Casillas (examined claimant once; provided internally inconsistent findings) and to caseworker/MHPP Lisa Wilbanks (an “other source” whose report relied heavily on claimant’s subjective reports).
- ALJ credited consultative examiner Dr. Suzanne Gibbard and two state agency reviewers who found Chesser capable of unskilled work with limited interpersonal contact and simple instructions.
- District court affirmed; Eighth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and also affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by giving little weight to treating psychiatrist Dr. Casillas | Chesser: ALJ improperly discounted a treating physician’s opinion that she is unable to work | SSA: Dr. Casillas saw Chesser only once and his treatment notes conflict with his later, extreme limitations; other evidence supports discounting | Affirmed — ALJ permissibly gave little weight due to limited treatment relationship and internal inconsistency and because other evidence supported a lesser limitation |
| Whether ALJ erred by discounting caseworker/MHPP Wilbanks (other medical source) | Chesser: Wilbanks’ observations support more severe limitations and should be given weight | SSA: Wilbanks’ opinion relied on claimant’s subjective reports and lacked medical foundation; ALJ may reasonably weigh other-source evidence | Affirmed — ALJ appropriately considered Wilbanks’ report but permissibly discounted portions tied to subjective complaints |
| Whether consultative and state-review opinions were properly credited over treating/source opinions | Chesser: ALJ improperly favored consultative/state reviewers over treating/source assessments | SSA: Consultative exam and record reviews were better supported and consistent with overall record and claimant’s own reports | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports relying on consultative examiner and state reviewers to form RFC |
| Whether ALJ’s RFC and step-five finding are supported by substantial evidence | Chesser: RFC understates her mental limitations, so vocational testimony is unreliable | SSA: RFC reflects supported limitations; VE testimony shows work exists in significant numbers | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports RFC and that claimant can perform jobs in national economy |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (explains the five-step disability evaluation process)
- Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010 (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Cruze v. Chater, 85 F.3d 1320 (court affirms when two inconsistent inferences possible)
- Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959 (treating physician opinion standards)
- Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082 (conclusory or inconsistent treating opinions may be given less weight)
- Cantrell v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 1104 (consultative examiner may be credited over treating physician if better supported)
- Nowling v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1110 (weighting of "other medical source" evidence and ALJ discretion)
- Pate-Fires v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 935 (records silent on mental health are not dispositive, but contemporaneous observations are relevant)