Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04156/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04156-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4156

___________

Nora J. Butler, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Michael J. Astrue, *

Commissioner of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 13, 2007 

Filed: June 20, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Nora J. Butler appeals the district court's1

 judgment affirming the Commissioner

of Social Security's denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits under

Title II of the Social Security Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq., and for

supplemental security income payments under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1381, et seq. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-4156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2007 Entry ID: 3321007
-2-

Butler alleged disability since December 1997 from several mental health

disorders and knee pain. Butler worked in a grocery warehouse prior to her disability

onset date. Since her alleged onset date, she has worked part time as a daycare

worker, telemarketer, and fast-food cook. On November 19, 2004, Butler testified at

a hearing before the Commissioner's administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ found

Butler's allegations of disabling mental and emotional instability and knee pain not

credible and determined Butler's residual functional capacity (RFC) did not prevent

her from performing her past work full time, making her ineligible for disability

benefits or supplemental security income payments.

Butler argues the Commissioner committed reversible error by relying on the

July 16, 2003, evaluation of a non-examining state agency psychiatrist, Dr. Lisa

Lacey, and in not affording greater weight to the November 17, 2004, opinion of her

treating physician, Dr. Daphne Maurer. Dr. Lacey opined Butler only had "mild"

mental impairments, could understand and follow simple instructions, was able to

relate to others in a work environment, and could make work-related decisions and

adapt to routine changes common in a competitive work environment. In contrast, Dr.

Maurer reported she was "unsure about [Butler's] ability" to make performance

adjustments and understand simple job instructions and opined Butler possessed poor

or no abilities to deal with work stressors. A vocational expert testified Butler could

work her past jobs given Dr. Lacey's assessment but would not be able to work any

jobs if Dr. Maurer's assessment were adopted. The ALJ discounted the opinion of Dr.

Maurer, because (1) she was a resident rather than attending physician in psychiatry,

(2) her medical findings relied heavily on Butler's subjective complaints, (3) she stated

she was "unsure" about Butler's abilities to make performance adjustments and follow

simple instructions, (4) her findings were inconsistent with a more thorough and

objectively supported assessment provided in May 1999 by treating psychiatrist Dr.

Bernard Beitman, chairman of and professor at a psychiatric teaching clinic, who

examined Butler the same number of times as Dr. Maurer, and (5) her findings were

inconsistent with those of another physician, Dr. Hope Wagner, who performed a

consultative psychiatric examination in June 2003.

Appellate Case: 06-4156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2007 Entry ID: 3321007
2

To the extent Butler challenges the ALJ's discounting of her subjective

complaints, we find no error. After considering the factors set forth in Polaski v.

Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), the ALJ found the severity

of the impairments alleged were inconsistent with Butler's reported daily activities,

especially in light of other discrepancies in Butler's statements. The ALJ cited

specific inconsistencies in Butler's statements concerning her alleged: placement in

special education classes in high school, difficulty interacting with co-workers,

frequency of missed work days, and number of hours worked per week. Additionally,

the record shows some medical examiners found she overstated the extent of her

impairments. This evidence affords an adequate basis to discount Butler's subjective

complaints. See Anderson v. Barnhart, 344 F.3d 809, 814 (8th Cir. 2003) ("While an

ALJ may not discount a claimant's subjective complaints solely because the medical

evidence fails to support them, an ALJ may discount those complaints where

inconsistencies appear in the record as a whole.").

-3-

We review the record de novo, taking into account whatever in the record fairly

detracts from the Commissioner's decision, and affirm where the findings are

supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Bowman v. Barnhart, 310

F.3d 1080, 1083 (8th Cir. 2002). After examining the ALJ's reasons for discounting

Dr. Maurer's evaluation, we find nothing improper in his treatment of Dr. Maurer's

opinion as substantial evidence supports the conclusion it was inconsistent with the

record as a whole. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1148 (8th Cir. 2001) ("The

ALJ may reject the conclusions of any medical expert, whether hired by the claimant

or the government, if they are inconsistent with the record as a whole."). Moreover,

the ALJ did not err in adopting the RFC of Dr. Lacey, which was consistent with the

medical findings of Dr. Beitman and Dr. Wagner. Finally, the ALJ did not err in

finding the medical record only supported a mild, not disabling, knee problem.2

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4156 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/20/2007 Entry ID: 3321007