Robert Thomas v. Nancy A. Berryhill
698 F. App'x 323
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Robert Thomas appealed the district court’s decision affirming the denial of his Social Security disability insurance benefits (DIB).
- Thomas alleged depression as a medically determinable impairment and argued it was severe enough to limit basic work activities.
- He had a long work history, delayed seeking treatment until months after applying for DIB, and underwent about six months of therapy with limited clinical findings.
- A nurse practitioner who prescribed medication submitted a medical-source statement asserting significant limitations; a doctor’s agency-ordered exam showed fewer limitations.
- The ALJ discounted the nurse practitioner’s restrictive opinion and gave limited weight to a low GAF score because it conflicted with qualitative observations of relatively high functioning.
- The court reviewed the administrative record for substantial evidence and affirmed the denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomas’s depression was a "severe" impairment | Thomas: depression significantly limits basic work activities | Commissioner: evidence shows minimal limitations and lack of disabling symptoms | Court: affirmed ALJ—substantial evidence supports finding depression not severe |
| Weight to give nurse practitioner’s medical-source statement | Thomas: NP’s statement shows significant limitations, should be credited | Commissioner: NP’s later statement inconsistent with her own notes and with examining doctor | Court: ALJ permissibly gave less weight to NP statement due to inconsistencies |
| Reliance on GAF score | Thomas: low GAF supports disability | Commissioner: GAF conflicted with observed functioning and is of little value | Court: ALJ properly discounted the GAF given the contradiction with qualitative observations |
| Need to review ALJ credibility findings | Thomas: challenges credibility determination | Commissioner: credibility focused on physical impairments not at issue on appeal | Court: unnecessary to review credibility because issues here concern mental impairment only |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. 2007) (framework for five-step disability analysis and deference to administrative findings)
- Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2005) (work history and lack of evidence of deterioration can support non-disability inference)
- Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033 (8th Cir. 2001) (failure to allege depression in application is significant)
- Nowling v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1110 (8th Cir. 2016) (GAF scores are of limited value)