Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02267/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02267-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
John V. Goetz
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of North Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2267

___________

John V. Goetz, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of *

Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 18, 2006

Filed: June 2, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John V. Goetz appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits. As relevant to the instant appeal, Goetz alleged

disability since June 2001 from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). After a

hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that (1) Goetz’s OCD and

other medical problems were severe but not of listing-level severity; (2) his subjective

complaints were not fully credible; and (3) his residual functional capacity (RFC)

Appellate Case: 05-2267 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2006 Entry ID: 2051524
-2-

precluded his past relevant work, but he could perform jobs a vocational expert

identified in response to a hypothetical. The Appeals Council denied review, and the

district court affirmed. 

Goetz’s only argument on appeal is that the ALJ erred by not adopting the

mental RFC opinion of treating psychiatrist Elsa Remer, who rated many of Goetz’s

work-related abilities as poor or markedly limited. We find that the ALJ properly

discounted Dr. Remer’s opinion. See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir.

2005) (treating physician’s opinion does not automatically control because record

must be evaluated as whole); Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 994 (8th Cir. 2005)

(while medical source opinions are considered in assessing RFC, final RFC

determination is left to ALJ). We agree with the ALJ that there were inconsistencies

between Dr. Remer’s RFC assessment and her treatment notes. Further, it appears

that Goetz’s decision to stop taking his prescribed medications at one point caused

him to deteriorate and require hospitalization, see Brown v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 535,

540-41 (8th Cir. 2004) (ALJ was free not to give controlling weight to treating

physician’s opinion because claimant was noncompliant with prescribed treatment;

if impairment can be controlled by medication, it cannot be viewed as disabling); and

as the district court noted, Dr. Remer did not discourage Goetz from seeking work,

and she drafted her RFC opinion eight months after the period to which it related. 

Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny Goetz’s motion to supplement the record

with evidence that is unrelated to the period at issue here.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2267 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2006 Entry ID: 2051524