Tesmer v. Colvin, 0:13-cv-01402

Tesmer filed for disability insurance benefits on September 23, 2010, alleging disability from April 1, 2009.
The SSA denied the claim initially; an ALJ held a hearing on March 21, 2012 and issued an unfavorable decision on March 29, 2012; the Appeals Council denied review on June 6, 2013, making the ALJ’s decision final.
Plaintiff’s impairments include bilateral wrist injuries, back pain, fibromyalgia, obesity, and depression; she previously worked as a data entry clerk and administrative assistant with wrist surgeries in the past.
A consultative psychological examiner evaluated Tesmer in October 2010; medical and treating-source records show wrist pain with varying treatment and limited activity.
The ALJ found Tesmer had a sedentary RFC with limitations on movement around dangerous machinery and heights, no ladders, minimal hand use, and no vibrating equipment, and concluded there were other jobs in the national economy Tesmer could perform; substantial evidence supported the decision.
The district court ultimately denied Tesmer’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s motion, affirming the denial of benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Weight given to nurse’s opinion	Tesmer contends Higgins’ opinion should be given more weight as treating-source-like evidence.	Weinreich contends Higgins’ opinion is not controlling and was properly discounted as based largely on subjective complaints and not corroborated by objective testing.	ALJ properly discounted Higgins’ opinion; not controlling and not fully supported by record.
Credibility analysis	Tesmer argues the credibility assessment undervalues her pain and functional limitations.	Weinreich asserts the ALJ provided valid reasons, including conservative treatment and lack of objective findings, for discounting symptoms.	ALJ’s credibility assessment affirmed; supported by objective findings and conservative treatment record.
Residual functional capacity for hand use	Tesmer challenges the finding that she could frequently use hands/fingers for fingering tasks.	Weinreich contends the record supports the RFC limiting fingering to frequent, not constant, use and accounting for dominant-hand use.	RFC found consistent with Dr. Beck and record; Tesmer can use hands frequently but not constantly.

Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211 (8th Cir. 2001) ( weighing medical opinions within RFC framework)
Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2009) (credibility and treatment-consistency considerations)
Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033 (8th Cir. 2001) (weight given to conservative treatment and daily activities)
Harris v. Barnhart, 356 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2004) (utilization of independent medical advisor as evidence)
Roe v. Chater, 92 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 1996) (VE testimony based on properly-phrased hypotheticals constitutes substantial evidence)