Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02426/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02426-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2426

___________

Tammy J. Swigert, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of *

Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 15, 2006

Filed: March 28, 2007

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tammy J. Swigert applied for social security disability and supplemental

security income benefits, alleging a combination of disabling impairments including

Type II diabetes, liver disease, hypertension, back pain, severe fatigue, severe acid

reflux causing nausea, depression, and other mental disorders. After a hearing, the

Commissioner’s administrative law judge found that Ms. Swigert’s diabetes, obesity,

and back disorder are severe impairments, her other physical impairments are not

severe, her mental impairments cause no more than slight limitations in the four

relevant functional areas of daily living, and her subjective complaints are not fully

credible. Crediting the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ found that Ms.

Appellate Case: 06-2426 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Entry ID: 3292661
1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

Swigert is unable to perform her past relevant work but retains the residual functional

capacity to perform the unskilled sedentary work of food and beverage order clerk and

is therefore not disabled. After the Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied Ms.

Swigert’s administrative appeal, she commenced this action seeking judicial review

of the agency’s final adverse action. The district court1

 granted summary judgment

in favor of the Commissioner, concluding that the decision is supported by substantial

evidence on the administrative record as a whole. Ms. Swigert appeals. We affirm.

On appeal, Ms. Swigert primarily argues that the ALJ erred in failing to afford

controlling weight to the opinion of her primary treating physician that her

impairments make rest “necessary at intervals and durations in Ms. Swigert’s

discretion” during an eight-hour workday. The vocational expert testified that a

person so limited is unable to work. The physician’s opinion appears in a Medical

Source Statement he completed at the request of Ms. Swigert’s attorney. The form

asked, “Would rest be medically helpful to necessary during an 8-hour workday in

coping with symptoms,” and if so, at what intervals and for what time periods. The

physician checked the “Yes” box and wrote “Pt. discretion” beneath the interval and

time period questions. The physician’s conclusory opinion that this amount of rest is

necessary (as opposed to helpful) is unsupported by the extensive medical evidence

in the record. Therefore, many of the physician’s limitations, but not this disabling

rest limitation, were included in the ALJ’s residual functional capacity findings. This

was not error. A treating physician’s checkmarks on an MSS form may be discounted

if they are contradicted by other objective medical evidence in the record. See Stormo

v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 805-06 (8th Cir. 2004); Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958, 961

(8th Cir. 2001); Social Security Ruling 96-2p, Titles II and XVI: Giving Controlling

Weight to Treating Source Medical Opinions (July 2, 1996).

Appellate Case: 06-2426 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Entry ID: 3292661
-3-

Ms. Swigert further argues that the ALJ gave excessive weight to the opinions

of a one-time consultative examiner, erred in failing to find her depression and mental

disorders to be severe mental impairments, and did not properly evaluate the

credibility of Ms. Swigert’s subjective complaints of pain, fatigue, and depression.

After careful review of the record, we agree with the district court that these

contentions must be rejected because substantial evidence on the administrative record

as a whole supports the ALJ’s findings and analysis.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2426 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Entry ID: 3292661