Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03167/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03167-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
David W. Vandenboom
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 04-3167

________________

David W. Vandenboom,

Appellant,

v.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart,

Commissioner, Social Security

Administration,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Southern District of Iowa.

 [PUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: March 18, 2005

 Filed: June 20, 2005

________________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

________________

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

David W. Vandenboom appeals the order of the district court1

 affirming the

final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, which

denied his application for disability insurance benefits. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 04-3167 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917527
-2-

I. 

Vandenboom was 40 years old at the time of the hearing before the ALJ. The

Administrative Record indicates that he has a high school education and his past work

experience includes employment as a dry cleaning supervisor, janitor, security officer,

and food service supervisor. Most recently, he was employed as a building services

coordinator for the Iowa Department of Corrections until February 26, 2001.

Vandenboom filed for disability insurance benefits in March 2001, asserting he was

disabled on the basis of headaches, fatigue, neck pain, forgetfulness, and emotional

frustration, and asserting a disability onset date of February 26, 2001.

Vandenboom was injured in a motor vehicle accident on September 28, 1999,

when a truck he was driving blew a tire and crashed over a bridge, dropping 25 feet

into a creek. He and his son awoke underwater but managed to free themselves from

the vehicle and walk out of the creek. He suffered a right scalp laceration, swelling

in his left forearm, a partial amputation of the right ear, a deep laceration on his thigh,

and numerous small lacerations. He was taken by ambulance to the emergency room

of the Keokuk Area Hospital and transferred to the University of Iowa Hospitals and

Clinics. A CT scan showed extra cranial soft tissue abnormalities without intracranial abnormality. Vandenboom was discharged from the hospital on October 1,

1999, and instructed not to perform heavy lifting for six weeks. After two weeks, he

returned to his job in prison maintenance, restricted to light duty. 

In November 1999, Vandenboom saw Dr. Deema Fattal in the Department of

Neurology at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, complaining of continued

headaches and dizziness, which had neither improved nor worsened since his hospital

stay. He reported that the headaches were disturbing his sleep, leaving him fatigued,

and he complained of irritability and nervousness. Vandenboom's neurological exam

was for the most part normal and unremarkable. Dr. Fattal instructed him to remain

on light duty for three more weeks and prescribed medication to deal with his

Appellate Case: 04-3167 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917527
-3-

decreased sleep, a mood abnormality, and headaches. Dr. Fattal performed a

neuropsychological evaluation on February 22, 2000, due to complaints of mild

memory decrease. Dr. Fattal evaluated his performance as within normal limits in all

assessed aspects of cognitive functioning. Dr. Fattal found no evidence of cognitive

difficulties or brain dysfunction, but noted that Vandenboom was frustrated because

his headaches seemed to be limiting his activities. Vandenboom did not seek further

treatment until February 8, 2001, nearly a year after his last visit to Dr. Fattal. 

On February 8, 2001, Vandenboom first saw Dr. Marc E. Hines, who noted that

Vandenboom had normal tone and strength and normal finger-nose-finger, heel-toshin, and rapid alternating movements. He was observed to have a normal heel, toe,

and tandem walk, and the mental examination revealed no abnormalities, with normal

memory, language, and calculations. Dr. Hines's impressions were that Vandenboom

suffered from a history of closed head injury with right frontal contusion and a frontal

lobe syndrome as well as difficulties with posttraumatic migraine headaches and

severe episodic mood swings. On February 26, 2001, Dr. Hines noted persistent

headaches and neck pain, fatigue, blurred vision, and depression. He adjusted

Vandenboom's medication. 

On March 26, 2001, Dr. William McMordie performed neuropsychological

testing. Dr. McMordie noted that Vandenboom reported headaches resulting from

the accident as his biggest problem. Vandenboom also complained of neck pain and

feeling tired, forgetful, and irritable. Dr. McMordie administered a battery of tests

including, among others, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the Wechsler

memory Scale, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Vandenboom's

scores ranged from average to borderline. Overall, Dr. McMordie stated that the

testing results suggested a disturbance in the higher cortical functioning, problems

with memory functioning, and emotional turmoil, all caused by the head injury

sustained in the 1999 accident. He recommended pharmacological intervention,

Appellate Case: 04-3167 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917527
-4-

which Vandenboom was receiving, and adjustment counseling, which Vandenboom

did not pursue. 

Vandenboom continued seeing Dr. Hines, reporting ongoing problems with

headaches, decreased memory, fatigue, and neck and back pain. In July 2001 Dr.

Hines stated that Vandenboom will not be returning to work. In February 2002 Dr.

Hines noted that Vandenboom's headaches had improved somewhat, but he still had

a lot of neck pain, and Dr. Hines stated that in his opinion, the biggest problem was

Vandenboom's weight, which had climbed to 281 pounds. A CT of the head

produced normal results in April 2002. In June 2002 Dr. Hines stated that

Vandenboom reported a 10% decrease in his headaches and should expect continued

improvement. 

At the hearing before the administrative law judge (ALJ), Vandenboom

testified that although he returned to work after the 1999 accident, he stopped

working in February 2001 due to headaches, fatigue, and an inability to stand, lift,

and handle stress. He stated he suffers from migraine headaches three to five times

a month, each time lasting two to four days and cumulatively resulting in ten to

twelve days of sick leave a month. He also stated he has pain in his arm, back, and

neck, and suffers from irritability, depression, difficulty sleeping, and dizziness. He

has no side effects from his medications, and he still drives an automobile with no

restrictions on his driver's license. He stated that he does quite a few chores around

the house as long as he sits down when he gets tired. His wife testified that

Vandenboom has become violent and irritable since the accident, he has headaches

most of the time, and he cannot remember things well. 

After considering the extent of Vandenboom's subjective complaints within the

framework of Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984), the ALJ found

that Vandenboom's subjective complaints were not fully credible and that his

symptoms were not as limiting as he alleged. The ALJ concluded that although

Appellate Case: 04-3167 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917527
-5-

Vandenboom's impairments are severe, they do not combine to meet or equal a listed

impairment. 

A vocational expert (VE) testified that a person of Vandenboom's age,

education, and experience who suffers from severe headaches but normal cognitive

functioning and no physical impairments could perform all of Vandenboom's past

relevant work. The VE further testified that even crediting all of Vandenboom's

testimony, he would be capable of performing all unskilled work in the sedentary,

light, and medium levels. The ALJ concluded that Vandenboom's impairments do not

prevent him from performing his past relevant work, and denied benefits. The

Appeals Council denied further review, and the district court affirmed. 

II. 

We review de novo the district court's decision to affirm the Commissioner's

denial of social security benefits. Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir.

2005). "In reviewing the district court's decision, we consider whether the ALJ's

determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole." Id. "In

assessing the substantiality of the evidence, we must consider evidence that detracts

from the Commissioner's decision as well as evidence that supports it." Eichelberger

v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 589 (8th Cir. 2004). We may not reverse the

Commissioner's decision merely upon a finding that we would have reached a

contrary conclusion. Id. "If, after review, we find it possible to draw two

inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the

Commissioner's findings, we must affirm the denial of benefits." Id. (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted). 

Vandenboom first argues that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's

failure to give controlling weight to the opinion of Dr. Hines, the treating neurologist.

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2005) (requiring the Commissioner to give

Appellate Case: 04-3167 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917527
-6-

controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician if "it is well-supported by

medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not

inconsistent with the other substantial evidence"). Here, the ALJ gave good reasons

for not giving controlling weight to Dr. Hines's opinions, stating that inconsistencies

in the medical record as well as Dr. Hines's failure to document objective medical

evidence to support Vandenboom's subjective complaints justified giving his opinions

less weight. See Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir. 2000) ("We [will]

uph[o]ld an ALJ's decision to discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating

physician where other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough

medical evidence or where a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions that

undermine the credibility of such opinions." (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted)). 

The record supports the ALJ's conclusion that Dr. Hines's diagnosis and

impressions were based largely on Vandenboom's subjective complaints with little

objective medical support, and the medical report on which he relied was inconsistent

with the whole record. Dr. Hines relied on the March 2001 evaluation by one-time

examining physician, Dr. McMordie, which noted a disturbance in higher cortical

functioning and significant memory problems. The cognitive deficits noted in the

testing performed by Dr. McMordie, however, are inconsistent with the prior opinions

of both Dr. Fattal and Dr. Hines, finding that Vandenboom's cognitive functioning

was normal. Also, a CT scan in April 2002 revealed no abnormalities. "It is the

ALJ's function to resolve conflicts among the various treating and examining

physicians." Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation

marks omitted). Dr. Hines was of the opinion that Vandenboom would not be able

to return to work, but a treating physician's opinion that a claimant is not able to

return to work "involves an issue reserved for the Commissioner and therefore is not

the type of 'medical opinion' to which the Commissioner gives controlling weight."

Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 994 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Appellate Case: 04-3167 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917527
-7-

A medical consultant from the State of Iowa Disability Determination Services

noted that the divergence of the neuropsychological testing in March 2001 from the

normal cognitive findings at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics a mere six

months earlier raised concerns about the credibility of Vandenboom's complaints and

his performance at the March evaluation. The consultant further noted that the

multiple cognitive deficits described by Dr. McMordie were not in accord with

clinical expectations in light of the report of no cognitive deficits only six months

earlier. The medical consultant concluded that from a purely psychiatric standpoint,

Vandenboom's records did not indicate a medically determinable impairment.

Other inconsistencies include the fact that Dr. Hines repeatedly diagnosed

Vandenboom with pain in his arms, legs and back, and cervical and lumbosacral

strain, yet he imposed no restrictions based on these diagnoses and cited no

supporting objective medical findings regarding these alleged impairments. Dr.

Hines imposed no restrictions on Vandenboom's ability to drive a motor vehicle in

spite of Vandenboom's reports of lightheadedness, debilitating headaches, decreased

memory, and poor concentration. The substantial evidence on the whole record

supports the ALJ's conclusion that Dr. Hines's opinion was not entitled to controlling

weight in this case. The same inconsistencies support the ALJ's decision to give little

weight to the opinion of Dr. McCordie. 

Vandenboom contends that the February 8, 2001, opinion of Dr. Hines and the

February 2000 report of Dr. Fattal, each finding normal cognitive functioning, do not

present relevant inconsistencies because he is asserting an onset date of February 26,

2001, which was his last day of work and subsequent to both of those opinions. We

disagree. The ALJ was entitled to consider all of the evidence in the record. All of

the medical evidence indicates that Vandenboom's headaches and related problems

resulted from the September 1999 accident with no intervening trauma and no

indication that his symptoms were deteriorating or were progressive in nature. Thus,

Appellate Case: 04-3167 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917527
-8-

there is no valid reason to exclude consideration of medical records dated prior to

Vandenboom's alleged date of onset. 

We reject out of hand Vandenboom's conclusory assertion that the ALJ failed

to consider whether he met listings 12.02 or 12.05C because Vandenboom provides

no analysis of the relevant law or facts regarding these listings.

Vandenboom's final argument is that the ALJ improperly determined his

residual functional capacity (RFC) by providing the VE with a defective hypothetical

question that failed to properly set forth his cognitive limitations. The hypothetical

question need only include those impairments and limitations found credible by the

ALJ, see Forte v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 892, 897 (8th Cir. 2004), and the claimant bears

the burden to establish that he or she cannot return to past relevant work,

Eichelberger, 390 F.3d at 591. The April 2002 CT scan, the February 2000 opinion

of Dr. Fattal, and the February 2001 opinion of Dr. Hines all support the ALJ's

conclusion that Vandenboom is within the normal limits of cognitive functioning.

Furthermore, it is significant that no physician placed any limitation upon

Vandenboom's work activities. See id. The ALJ's decision not to include severe

cognitive limitations in the hypothetical question was supported by substantial

evidence in the whole record.

III.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3167 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917527