Rice v. Colvin, 5:13-cv-06115

Background

Plaintiff Jason R. Rice applied for Title II disability benefits alleging onset January 25, 2011, based on severe mental impairments (bipolar disorder/psychosis, PTSD, mood disorder) with history of violence, auditory hallucinations, and instability.
January 2011 ER admission for hearing voices, suicidal/homicidal statements; hospitalized and discharged in February 2011 on medication (discharge GAF 60).
Treating physician Dr. Patricia Hogan treated Rice repeatedly (multiple visits Feb 2011–2012), completed a Mental Impairment Questionnaire and Medical Source Statement (April & July 2012) finding marked to extreme limitations (GAF 40).
Treating therapist Dr. Susan Shuman provided a July 2012 Medical Source Statement finding similar marked/extreme limits for work-related interaction and concentration.
A non‑examining state agency consultant (May 2011) gave a more optimistic, prospective opinion (mild–moderate restrictions) based on Rice’s Jan–May 2011 course; the ALJ gave that opinion significant weight and gave little weight to Dr. Hogan.
ALJ found Rice had RFC for full range of work at all exertional levels with significant non‑exertional limits (unskilled work, occasional public/co-worker contact, no high‑production jobs) and denied benefits; District Court reversed and remanded to award benefits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ properly discounted treating physician Dr. Hogan’s opinions	Rice: ALJ erred by not giving Dr. Hogan controlling weight; her repeated treating opinions are supported by records and consistent with treating therapist	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly relied on evidence that Rice responded to medication and lack of institutionalization; state consultant opinion supports lesser restrictions	Court: ALJ erred; gave improper little weight to treating opinion and relied on non‑examining consultant instead; treating opinion deserved great weight
Whether the RFC adequately incorporated limitations regarding supervisors and attendance	Rice: RFC omitted extreme limitations re: supervisors and marked limits causing absences; VE testified such limits preclude work	Commissioner: Even with no coworker/public contact jobs exist per VE	Court: RFC failed to include limits on interaction with supervisors and inability to maintain attendance; VE testimony shows those omissions are material
Whether the non‑examining consultant’s prospective opinion can outweigh treating opinions	Rice: Non‑examining, prospective view doesn’t constitute substantial evidence to override treating doctors, especially for mental illness	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly credited consultant’s view given record through May 2011	Court: Consultant’s prospective opinion is not substantial evidence here and conflicts with treating sources; mental impairments can show symptom fluctuation so treating opinion controls
Appropriate remedy (remand for further proceedings vs. award benefits)	Rice: Record establishes disability from Jan 25, 2011 — request for award of benefits	Commissioner: (implicitly) further proceedings appropriate since ALJ could reassess	Court: Remanded for award of benefits due to record supporting disability and ALJ’s legal errors

Key Cases Cited

Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2005) (treating physician’s opinion given controlling weight when well supported and not inconsistent)
Brown v. Astrue, 611 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2010) (treating source rejection requires good reasons; mental illness may have symptom‑free periods)
Kelley v. Callahan, 133 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 1998) (consultative or nonexamining physician’s opinion alone generally does not constitute substantial evidence)
Cox v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2003) (consultative examiner who contradicts treating physician is insufficient to outweigh treating opinion)
Vossen v. Astrue, 612 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2010) (treatment records and treating source opinions merit deference when supported)