27 F.4th 1353
8th Cir.2022Background:
- Schmitt applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB), alleging onset January 15, 2012; insured through December 31, 2016. Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed ALJ; 8th Cir. review follows.
- Medical diagnoses: multiple sclerosis (MS) with fatigue, spasticity, neuropathy, and cognitive deficits; history of breast cancer treated with mastectomy and chemotherapy that worsened fatigue/neuropathy.
- Objective testing: 2012 neuropsychological testing largely average but showing moderate executive dysfunction; 2016 testing showed mild executive dysfunction and some decline; treating neurologists later opined significant limitations and likely excessive work absences.
- Hearing evidence: testimony from claimant, medical expert Dr. Butler (opining limits to simple/unskilled, non‑production work but no listing-level impairment), and a vocational expert identifying light, unskilled jobs (e.g., merchandise marker, cashier II, router).
- ALJ findings: severe impairments (MS, remitted breast cancer, cognitive disorder) but no listing-level impairment (11.09B or 12.02); RFC for light work limited to simple tasks at a nonproduction pace; ALJ gave most weight to Dr. Butler, little weight to some treating opinions and third‑party statements (many dated after DLI).
- Appeal points: Schmitt challenged (1) the ALJ’s listing determinations (arguing MS + fatigue meet 11.09B and cognitive deficits meet 12.02) and (2) the RFC/light‑work finding (arguing improper discounting of treating opinions and lay statements). The court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schmitt’s impairments met or medically equaled Listing 11.09B or 12.02 | Schmitt argued her MS (with fatigue) and cognitive decline meet 11.09B or 12.02; Dr. Butler only assessed 12.02 and did not account for fatigue | Commissioner argued record lacks the required marked/extreme limitations; activities and objective findings do not support meeting listings; Dr. Butler’s ratings accounted for fatigue | ALJ’s finding that neither listing was met is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole |
| Whether the RFC for light work (simple tasks, nonproduction pace) is supported | Schmitt argued ALJ improperly discounted treating physicians and lay witnesses and failed to account for disabling fatigue and cognitive limits | Commissioner argued ALJ reasonably weighed evidence: relied on medical expert, objective testing, claimant’s activities; treating opinions inconsistent or post‑DLI; lay statements referred to post‑DLI function | ALJ’s RFC finding is supported by substantial evidence; discounting of certain treating and lay opinions was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (explaining disability claimant must meet all listing criteria to prevail)
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 1067 (plaintiff bears burden to show impairment meets or equals a listing)
- Koch v. Kijakazi, 4 F.4th 656 (explaining "substantial evidence in the record as a whole" standard requires considering evidence that detracts from as well as supports ALJ decision)
- Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926 (RFC must be based on all relevant evidence though no single medical opinion is required)
- Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790 (ALJ may discount treating opinion when inconsistent or contradicted by better supported evidence)
- Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (factors for evaluating subjective complaints)
- Blakeman v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 878 (claimant must show fatigue is disabling, not merely present)
- Delph v. Astrue, 538 F.3d 940 (court must consider evidence that fairly detracts from ALJ’s decision)