Paula Michel v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 640 F. App'x 585

Background

Paula Michel, born 1966, worked 20 years as a speech pathologist and stopped working October 22, 2009; she applied for Title II disability insurance benefits alleging chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and depression.
Medical record: long-term treatment by PCP Dr. John Viner (10+ years), rheumatologist Dr. George Isaac, consultative psychologist Dr. Keith Gibson, state-agency reviewers, and a functional capacity evaluation by PT Mark Blankespoor; treatment notes show chronic pain/fatigue with periods of improvement on medication and exercise.
Dr. Viner (treating) ultimately completed an RFC form concluding Michel was disabled; Blankespoor’s FCE suggested sedentary capability but inability to sustain full-time work; Dr. Gibson (consultative) found impairments in attention, concentration, and pace.
State-agency medical and psychological consultants assessed sedentary RFC with moderate limitations in concentration/pace; treating and specialty notes also documented normal strength and range of motion at times and improvement with treatment.
ALJ found Michel has severe impairments (fibromyalgia, mood disorder, pain disorder, chronic fatigue), but ruled RFC permitted only sedentary, simple, unskilled work with occasional postural limits and a climate-controlled, low-hazard environment; VE testified jobs existed and ALJ denied benefits. District court and the panel majority affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Weight given to treating physician Dr. Viner’s opinions	Viner was long-term treating PCP whose opinion that Michel is disabled should carry controlling or substantial weight	ALJ gave little weight because Viner’s disability conclusions are legal conclusions, his RFC form was conclusory, and contained internal/external inconsistencies with the record	ALJ permissibly gave Viner’s conclusory "unable to work" opinion little weight; substantial evidence supports that choice
Weight given to PT Blankespoor’s FCE	Blankespoor’s objective FCE showed inability to sustain full-time work and should be credited	PT is not an "acceptable medical source"; ALJ reasonably gave it little weight where inconsistent with medical source findings and based largely on subjective complaints	ALJ properly discounted PT’s opinion as other acceptable medical sources contradicted it and PT is not controlling
Credibility of consultative psychologist Dr. Gibson re: attention/concentration/pace	Dr. Gibson found significant limitations in attention/pace that should have been included in RFC	ALJ found Gibson’s findings inconsistent with treating records showing largely intact concentration and therefore afforded little weight	ALJ permissibly discounted Gibson’s limitations where inconsistent with other record evidence; RFC need not include rejected limitations
Evaluation of fibromyalgia/chronic fatigue and use of VE hypothetical	Michel contends fibromyalgia/chronic fatigue were disabling and ALJ’s hypothetical to VE omitted relevant limitations	Commissioner argues ALJ found these impairments severe, accounted for supported limitations in RFC, and hypothetical matched RFC accepted as true	Court held ALJ properly considered impairments, RFC reflected medically supported limits, and VE hypothetical was adequate; substantial evidence supports denial

Key Cases Cited

Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2005) (five-step disability analysis framework)
Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2007) (standards for weighing medical opinions and treating-source weight)
Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2011) (hypothetical to VE must reflect impairments supported by substantial evidence)
Pirtle v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2007) (fibromyalgia recognized as potentially disabling but not per se disabling)
Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2012) (conclusory checkbox forms have little evidentiary value)
Hamilton v. Astrue, 518 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 2008) (ALJ must give good reasons for discounting treating-physician opinions)