Rick Whitman v. Carolyn W. Colvin
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15195
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Whitman applied for Title II disability benefits; the Commissioner denied, and the district court affirmed.
- Whitman claimed disability since June 15, 2007 due to degenerative back and right thumb conditions, with a sparse work history and no work since onset.
- He was incarcerated Nov 2007–Oct 2008; initial prison intake showed back problems but later records did not flag ongoing back pain as a health issue.
- Whitman produced March 2010 imaging showing L5-S1 degenerative disk disease; March 2010 exam described severe back pain and disability, while other physicians offered RFC assessments with restrictions.
- The ALJ gave Dr. Graham’s restrictive opinion little weight, relied on Dr. Greenfield’s RFC, and found the record insufficient to support total disability; the Appeals Council declined further review.
- Whitman sought remand for new medical evidence under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); the district court denied remand and the circuit affirmed the Commissioner's decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of treating vs examining opinions | Whitman argues Dr. Graham’s opinion should control | Graham is a consultative, not treating, opinion; not well-supported | ALJ did not err in giving Graham limited weight |
| Credibility under Polaski factors | Whitman disputes the credibility findings | ALJ properly weighed self-reported limits against sparse treatment | Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding |
| Remand for new evidence under § 405(g) | District court abused by not remanding for additional evidence | Good cause not shown; evidence not material to time period | District court did not abuse discretion; remand denied |
| Treatment history as a reliability indicator | Failure to seek care undermines disability claim | Nonpayment of care due to financial constraints; not dispositive | ALJ properly considered lack of medical care as probative but not sole basis |
| Unemployment benefits and disability status | Receipt of unemployment undermines disability claim | Unemployment compensation is evidence that can undermine disability but is not conclusive | District court’s treatment of unemployment evidence upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2005) (substantial evidence standard; evaluating treating physician weight)
- Medhaug v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2009) (two inconsistent conclusions; defer to ALJ when record supports)
- Hutsell v. Massanari, 259 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2001) (duty to develop the record; treating-physician silence not substantial evidence)
- Snead v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2004) (duty to develop record; pro se status does not excuse failure to provide evidence)
- Johnson v. Chater, 108 F.3d 178 (8th Cir. 1997) (unemployment evidence can rebut disability allegations)