Kimberly Nowling v. Carolyn W. Colvin
813 F.3d 1110
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kimberly Nowling applied for Title II and XVI disability benefits alleging conversion disorder causing psychogenic non‑epileptic "pseudo‑seizures," along with migraines, obesity, mood/anxiety/personality disorders.
- Treating providers (psychiatrist Dr. Menendez, GP Dr. Fernandez, therapist Nancy Miller) treated her over several years; GAF scores generally 45–50; Dr. Menendez completed a medical source statement opining significant work limitations and >4 absences/month.
- Consulting psychologists (Keough, Sullivan) opined only mild–moderate limitations and that she could do low‑stress work.
- Lay witness (sister‑in‑law Dawn Nowling) testified to frequent witnessed pseudo‑seizures and described functional limits consistent with claimant.
- ALJ found the impairments medically established but partially non‑credible, gave little weight to Dr. Menendez and limited consideration to Nancy Miller and Dawn Nowling, adopted a residual functional capacity allowing light, simple, low‑stress work, and relied on a vocational expert to find jobs available; district court affirmed.
- Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded, concluding the ALJ failed to follow required procedures for somatoform/conversion disorders and inadequately considered treating and other‑source evidence, lay testimony, longitudinal evidence, and the vocational testimony regarding absenteeism.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to consider lay witness testimony (Dawn Nowling) | Dawn's observations corroborate frequency/severity of seizures and show limits inconsistent with ALJ's findings | Any error was harmless because the same evidence discrediting claimant would discredit the lay witness (Buckner) | Remand—ALJ failed to address lay testimony, and omission was not harmless given somatoform context and discrepancies about activities |
| Improperly discounting treating physician (Dr. Menendez) | ALJ wrongly dismissed treating opinion based on a GAF inconsistency and selective reliance on isolated notes of "improvement" without considering longitudinal record | ALJ permissibly weighed inconsistencies and gave more weight to consulting examiners | Remand—ALJ gave insufficient reasons; reliance on GAF and snapshot notes was improper without addressing course of treatment and nature of conversion disorder |
| Failure to consider other‑medical‑source evidence (Nancy Miller, therapist) | Miller's long treatment history and consistent ratings should have been considered when assessing severity | Miller is not an "acceptable medical source," so ALJ has discretion to discount her | Remand—ALJ erred by effectively disregarding Miller without adequate consideration of length/consistency of treatment per SSR 06‑3p and App.1 guidance |
| Failure to apply Listing 12.07 and account for structured settings/longitudinal symptomatology & VE absenteeism evidence | ALJ did not meaningfully analyze Listing 12.07, did not evaluate effect of conversion disorder on subjective perception, and ignored VE testimony that periodic unpredictable absenteeism would be disabling | ALJ stated he considered the listing and relied on VE finding that without unpredictable absences jobs exist | Remand—ALJ failed to follow §12.00 requirements (longitudinal evidence, nonmedical sources, structured‑setting effects) and did not resolve whether claimant’s symptoms matched the disabling hypotheticals relied on by the VE |
Key Cases Cited
- Easter v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1128 (8th Cir. 1989) (somatoform/conversion disorders may produce genuinely believed but medically unsupported symptoms; ALJ must consider that dynamic)
- Metz v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 1995) (ALJ must not reject subjective somatoform complaints without an express credibility finding)
- Gowell v. Apfel, 242 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 2001) (ALJ who expressly discredits claimant for good cause will be upheld even in somatoform cases)
- Pate‑Fires v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 2009) (GAF explained; guidance on rating/using longitudinal mental health evidence)
- Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2011) (failure to discuss lay testimony need not require remand if omission is harmless and same reasons discredit claimant would discredit witness)
- Hutsell v. Massanari, 259 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2001) ("doing well" in treatment does not necessarily indicate ability to work; ALJ must consider structured settings)