Veronica Grindley v. Kilolo Kijakazi, 9 F.4th 622

Veronica Grindley applied for disability insurance benefits and SSI, alleging mood disorders, lupus, and fibromyalgia among other conditions.
An ALJ found severe impairments (including fibromyalgia and lupus) but determined Grindley had the RFC for light work and denied benefits, citing substance abuse, treatment noncompliance, and a lack of disabling findings from treating physicians.
The Appeals Council declined review; the district court affirmed the denial, and Grindley appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
The ALJ discounted some subjective pain testimony based on objective exam findings, inconsistent medical records, opioid addiction, smoking against medical advice, and failure to follow prescribed treatment.
Grindley challenged the ALJ’s use of objective evidence for fibromyalgia, the record development on tender-point testing, the credibility finding, and the weighing of treating versus non‑examining physician opinions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of objective evidence for fibromyalgia	ALJ improperly relied on lack of objective findings; fibromyalgia often lacks objective signs	ALJ considered subjective evidence and discussed the record; objective findings reasonably undermined disabling claims	ALJ did not rely solely on objective evidence; substantial evidence supports his conclusion
Duty to develop record on tender points	ALJ failed to develop the record; tender-point testing was unclear and could show 18 points	Record was not sufficiently ambiguous or crucial to require further development; substantial evidence of symptoms exists without tender-point detail	No remand; any inconsistency about tender points was harmless error
Credibility re: pain, substance abuse, noncompliance	ALJ failed to properly apply Polaski factors and improperly found testimony inconsistent with medical evidence	ALJ permissibly discounted credibility based on substance abuse, medication noncompliance, and objective record contradictions	Credibility determination affirmed as supported by record
Weight given to treating vs non‑examining opinions	ALJ gave undue weight to non‑examining consultants and discounted treating physicians’ opinions	ALJ permissibly gave limited weight to conclusory check‑box forms and relied on the overall record and consultant opinions	ALJ’s weighing of medical opinions was proper and supported by substantial evidence

Renfrow v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 918 (de novo review of district court SSA denials)
Pickney v. Chater, 96 F.3d 294 (substantial‑evidence standard)
Tilley v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 675 (consider record as whole; account for detracting evidence)
Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086 (two‑inconsistent‑positions rule supports affirming ALJ)
Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785 (five‑step disability evaluation framework)
Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (factors for evaluating subjective complaints)
Pirtle v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 931 (fibromyalgia acknowledged as potentially disabling but diagnosis alone insufficient)
Brosnahan v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 671 (daily activities do not necessarily show ability for substantial gainful activity in fibromyalgia cases)
Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963 (ALJ duty to develop record only when a crucial issue is undeveloped)
Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825 (harmless error doctrine for ALJ mistakes)
Sloan v. Saul, 933 F.3d 946 (opinion‑writing need only permit meaningful judicial review)
Kraus v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1019 (ALJ may discount conclusory check‑box medical forms)