Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wills v. Colvin

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southwestern Division

October 22, 2014

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORTRIE D. SMITH, Senior District Judge.

Pending is Plaintiff's appeal of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for disability benefits. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed.


Plaintiff was born in April 1959, completed high school, and has prior work experience as a pre-kindergarten teacher, camp director and administrative assistant. She alleges she became disabled on May 26, 2010, due to chronic bilateral lower extremity lymphedema, recurring blood clots, arthritis, back and neck trouble and high blood pressure. The ALJ found Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") "to lift 20 pounds and can complete an eight-hour workday, if given the option to alternate between sitting and standing, as needed, in 20 minute increments." R. at 12. A vocational expert testified and the ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform her past work as a pre-kindergarten teacher and a camp director and that she also could perform work as an inspector, assembler and packager.


In this proceeding, Plaintiff contends the ALJ committed four errors. First, she alleges the ALJ failed to accord proper weight to the opinion offered by Ms. Carol Maples, Ms. Wills's occupational therapist. Second, she contends the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence in the Record as a whole because the ALJ did not base the RFC on any medical evidence. Third, she maintains the ALJ failed to properly assess her credibility. Fourth, she argues that the RFC is impermissibly vague.

"[R]eview of the Secretary's decision [is limited] to a determination whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Substantial evidence is evidence when reasonable minds would accept as adequate to support the Secretary's conclusion. [The Court] will not reverse a decision simply because some evidence may support the opposite conclusion." Mitchell v. Shalala, 25 F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Though advantageous to the Commissioner, this standard also requires that the Court consider evidence that fairly detracts from the final decision. Forsythe v. Sullivan, 926 F.2d 774, 775 (8th Cir. 1991) (citing Hutsell v. Sullivan, 892 F.2d 747, 749 (8th Cir. 1989)). Substantial evidence means "more than a mere scintilla" of evidence; rather, it is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Gragg v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 932, 938 (8th Cir. 2010).


Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to accord sufficient weight to Ms. Maples's opinion. Generally speaking, a treating source's opinion is entitled to deference. This general rule is not ironclad; a treating source's opinion may be disregarded if it is unsupported by clinical or other data or is contrary to the weight of the remaining evidence in the record. E.g., Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 793-94 (8th Cir. 2012); Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 929-30 (8th Cir. 2010); Pena v. Chater, 76 F.3d 906, 908 (8th Cir. 1996).

Here the ALJ discounted Ms. Maples's opinion because objective evidence and treatment notes did not support her opinion, Plaintiff's testimony contradicted her opinion and Plaintiff's daily activities were inconsistent with her opinion. R. at 14-15. Plaintiff argues that each of the ALJ's reasons is without merit. However, the Court "must affirm the Commissioner's decision if the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence, even if the record also supports a contrary result and even if we would decide the facts differently." Raney v. Barnhart, 396 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).

The ALJ found that the objective evidence and treatment notes did not support Maples's opinion. Plaintiff argues that Maples observed in her treatment notes exacerbating and relieving factors for Plaintiff. R. at 268, 270. However, those observations appear to be based completely on Plaintiff's self-reports; and, as detailed in Section II.D, the ALJ did not find Plaintiff's self-reports credible. Further, Maples opines in her Medical Source Statement that Plaintiff must avoid any exposure to environmental factors including, "extreme cold, extreme heat, weather, wetness/humidity, dust/fumes, vibration, hazards, [and] heights." R. at 222. Out of more than one hundred pages of treatment notes, Maples appears to mention restrictions regarding environmental factors only once. R. at 277.

Next, Plaintiff's testimony conflicts with Maples's opinion. Maples opines that Plaintiff could not lift more than 5 pounds, either occasionally or frequently. R. at 221. Plaintiff testified that she could lift 20 pounds. R. at 46. Plaintiff argues that she only testified generally that she could lift 15 to 20 pounds; she did not testify specifically whether she could do so regularly or occasionally. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. Five pounds is not equal to 20 pounds; and thus, an inconsistency exists between Maples's opinion and Plaintiff's testimony. Resolving this inconsistency is a task left to the ALJ.

Finally, Plaintiff's daily activities conflict with Maples's opinion. Most notably, Maples maintains Plaintiff can sit continuously without a break for only 15 minutes. R. at 221. But Plaintiff frequently takes her daughter to and from school, a car ride that lasts from 20 to 30 minutes. R. at 47-49. Additionally, Plaintiff volunteers with the school band, which requires sitting for 20 to 30 minutes at a time. R. at 52-3.

Because Maples's opinion is not supported by objective medical evidence and is contrary to other evidence in the Record, the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.