Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03882/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03882-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3882

___________

Michael R. Dewey, *

*

Plaintiff/Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner *

of Social Security, *

*

Defendant/Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 18, 2007

Filed: December 4, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

___________

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Michael R. Dewey appeals from the district court's entry of judgment against

him in his claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security

Act and his claim for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the

Act. Because the administrative decision in this case reveals that the Administrative

Law Judge erroneously relied on the opinion of a person with no medical credentials

as a medical consultant, we must remand to the agency for rehearing. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g). 

Appellate Case: 06-3882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Entry ID: 3378486
1

The reader consulting the table referenced above, Rule 202.21, may be

confused to find the word "Do." instead of "Not disabled." "Do." is an abbreviation

for "ditto." U.S. Gov't Printing Office, Style Manual 159 (2000).

-2-

Dewey applied for disability insurance and supplemental security benefits

because he suffers from back problems and Hepatitis C. The ALJ deciding his case

denied benefits because he found that Dewey could perform light work, which with

his age, education, and work history, meant that he was not disabled under the

Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule

202.21.1

 In reaching the determination that Dewey could perform light work, the ALJ

explicitly credited a "Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment," authored

by "Nancy Muser, Senior Counselor." As the Commissioner concedes, Ms. Muser

was not a physician. Nor does the Commissioner contend that Muser has any other

medical credentials that would qualify her to act as a medical consultant under 20

C.F.R. § 404.1616(b). However, the ALJ's opinion shows that the ALJ labored under

the belief that the Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment had been

authored by a physician:

In reaching this conclusion [that Dewey's testimony regarding the

severity and functional consequences of his symptoms was not fully

credible], substantial weight is being given to the opinions of the

Disability Determination Service physicians as supported by and

consistent with the evidence of the entire record (Social Security Ruling

96-6p). They determined that the claimant retains the ability to perform

work at the light exertional level with some postural limitations. The

undersigned agrees.

Dewey explains that this misapprehension was in all likelihood caused by the

Missouri state agency's use of an outdated form that called for a medical consultant's

signature, despite the state's use of modified, experimental procedures that do not

require a medical consultant to sign the disability determination forms. See 42 C.F.R.

§ 404.906(a) (announcing modification to disability determination process) & §

Appellate Case: 06-3882 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Entry ID: 3378486
-3-

404.906(b)(2) (under experimental procedure, medical consultant not required to sign

disability determination forms). The ALJ simultaneously credited the Disability

Determination Service "physicians" and refused to give controlling weight to Dewey's

treating physician, Dr. Beyer, who opined that Dewey could lift less than ten pounds

and walk or stand for at least two hours a day. 

The Appeals Council denied Dewey's request for review. Dewey brought an

action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the Commissioner's decision.

The district court entered judgment against him. 

We review de novo the district court's grant of judgment against Dewey.

O'Donnell v. Barnhart, 318 F.3d 811, 816 (8th Cir. 2003). We review the ALJ's

findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence on

the record as a whole, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), but we review de novo whether the ALJ

based his decision on a legal error. Miles v. Barnhart, 374 F.3d 694, 698 (8th Cir.

2004); Keller v. Shalala, 26 F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 1994).

There is certainly no substantial evidence that the Residual Functional Capacity

Assessment in the record was the opinion of a physician. The Commissioner's brief

admits, "In his decision, the ALJ did factually mischaracterize Ms. Muser's assessment

as having been performed by a physician." The record contains a report from a

medical consultant, but the consultant did not opine that Dewey could perform "at the

light exertional level with some postural limitations," as the ALJ reported the state

agency's "physicians" had said. Instead, this language appears to have been drawn

from the Residual Functional Capacity Assessment. In the context of discussing the

Residual Functional Capacity Assessment, the ALJ cited Social Security Ruling 96-

6p, which requires ALJs to accord a certain weight to the opinions of state agency

medical consultants; this inapposite citation indicates that the ALJ inadvertantly

weighed the opinion of a lay person under the rules appropriate for weighing the

opinion of a medical consultant, which would be a legal error in applying the ruling.

Appellate Case: 06-3882 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Entry ID: 3378486
-4-

The Commissioner argues that the error was harmless, but in light of the

presence in the record of a more restrictive opinion from Dewey's treating physician,

we cannot say that the ALJ would inevitably have reached the same result if he had

understood that the Residual Functional Capacity Assessment had not been completed

by a physician or other qualified medical consultant. 

We remand for rehearing.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3882 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Entry ID: 3378486