Jonathon Swink v. Andrew Saul
931 F.3d 765
8th Cir.2019Background
- Swink, a 41-year-old with a history of lumbar back surgery (2013), seizure disorder, and anxiety, applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits alleging disability beginning October 28, 2013.
- After denial and reconsideration, an ALJ hearing (March 21, 2016) took testimony from Swink and a vocational expert; VE identified over 1.2 million jobs compatible with the ALJ’s hypothetical limitations.
- Medical records during the relevant period showed stable generalized seizures and anxiety on medication, normal gait and neurologic findings, improved back status after surgery, and providers clearing gradual return to activity.
- Treating nurse practitioner Broniste completed a restrictive physical-capacity form (limited sitting, need for unscheduled breaks, frequent absences), while SSA consultants concluded light work with occasional postural limits and avoidance of hazards.
- The ALJ found Swink capable of light, unskilled work with occasional postural limitations and avoidance of hazards (RFC), denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s RFC omitted/work-impact limitations (frequent absences, unscheduled breaks, off-task) | ALJ failed to include or assign weight to Broniste’s opinion showing frequent absences, breaks, reduced sitting/standing | ALJ’s RFC supported by substantial evidence (records show stability, normal strength/gait, post-op improvement) | Court affirmed ALJ: substantial evidence supports RFC despite contrary evidence |
| Whether ALJ erred by not ordering consultative examination | ALJ should have ordered a consultative exam to resolve conflicts about work-impact limitations | No exam required where existing record provides sufficient basis for decision | Court held ALJ not required to order consultative exam; record was sufficient |
| Whether ALJ improperly discredited Swink’s subjective pain testimony | ALJ improperly discounted Swink’s pain and functional limitations | ALJ reasonably weighed credibility against objective findings and activities | Court held credibility determination supported by substantial evidence |
| Weight given to treating/provider opinion (Broniste) | ALJ should have given controlling/greater weight to Broniste’s restrictive assessment | ALJ permissibly found Broniste’s extreme restrictions inconsistent with other substantial evidence | Court affirmed ALJ’s treatment of Broniste’s opinion as unsupported by overall record |
Key Cases Cited
- Papesh v. Colvin, 786 F.3d 1126 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for Social Security appeals)
- Ash v. Colvin, 812 F.3d 686 (8th Cir. 2016) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 2016) (RFC must be based on some medical evidence)
- Despain v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 2019) (claimant bears burden to establish RFC)
- Anderson v. Shalala, 51 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 1995) (ALJ may decide without additional medical evidence if record suffices)
- Schwandt v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2019) (factors for evaluating subjective complaints of pain)
- Nash v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 907 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 2018) (court will not substitute its credibility judgment for ALJ’s)
- Winn v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 894 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2018) (treating physician opinion controlling only if supported and consistent)