40 F.4th 872
8th Cir.2022Background:
- Jason Bowers, a former welder and electrical/cable lineman, applied for disability insurance benefits in Jan. 2018 with an alleged onset of Dec. 18, 2017.
- Diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, sacroiliac osteoarthritis, and degenerative disc disease; testified to daily pain, stiffness, fatigue, limited sleep, but also ability to walk/drive/shop for up to an hour and perform household chores.
- Treated by rheumatologist Dr. Majewski for ~15 years; most physical exams were routine/normal, imaging showed limited abnormalities, and providers advised exercise and conservative treatment.
- Dr. Majewski completed a check-box form declaring Bowers disabled and recommending severe exertional limits (very limited sitting/standing/walking, frequent breaks, ability to change position) and environmental restrictions.
- Two non‑examining State agency physicians reviewed the file and concluded Bowers could perform light work with fewer restrictions; a vocational expert identified jobs available under the ALJ’s adopted RFC but none if Majewski’s extreme limits were credited.
- The ALJ found Bowers capable of a range of light work with occasional postural limitations, no ladder climbing, and avoidance of pulmonary irritants/extreme temperatures; denied benefits; the district court affirmed and this court affirmed on appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ's RFC finding (light work with specified limits) is supported by substantial evidence | ALJ’s RFC is too permissive given Bowers’s pain and functional limits | RFC is supported by medical records, normal exams, imaging, activities, and non‑examining opinions | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC finding |
| Whether the ALJ improperly discounted treating rheumatologist Dr. Majewski’s opinion | Majewski’s opinion should be credited; it shows inability to sustain full‑time work | Under 20 C.F.R. §404.1520c no special weight; Majewski’s opinion lacked support and consistency with the record | Affirmed — ALJ permissibly found Majewski’s opinion only partially persuasive due to poor support/consistency |
| Whether reliance on non‑examining State agency physicians was improper | Their file‑only reviews are less reliable because they did not examine Bowers | ALJ may rely on file reviewers; their opinions were consistent with objective evidence and routine treatment | Affirmed — ALJ permissibly relied on these opinions as consistent with the record |
| Whether vocational testimony requires finding disability if Majewski’s limits are credited | VE said no jobs exist under Majewski’s extreme limits, so Bowers would be disabled | ALJ adopted a less restrictive RFC supported by evidence; VE identified jobs for that RFC | Affirmed — because ALJ did not adopt Majewski’s extreme limits, jobs existed at step 5 |
Key Cases Cited
- Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review: substantial evidence supports administrative findings)
- Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2016) (ALJ must base RFC on all relevant evidence including medical records and claimant’s statements)
- Tellez v. Barnhart, 403 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may consider opinions of non‑examining State agency consultants)