1

JoAnne Barnhart has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social

Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2952

___________

Patricia Van Winkle, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

JoAnne Barnhart,1

 Social Security *

Administration Commissioner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 20, 2002

 Filed: January 15, 2003 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Patricia Van Winkle appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Having carefully

reviewed the record, see Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001)

(standard of review is narrow, and appeals court affirms if Commissioner’s findings
-2-

are supported by substantial evidence on record as whole), we affirm in part and

reverse in part. 

In her September 1997 applications and subsequent filings, Van Winkle alleged

disability from, inter alia, headaches; arthritis; a history of a mastectomy; anxiety;

memory and concentration problems; and depression with suicidal thoughts. Van

Winkle has a college degree, and at the time of the July 1999 administrative hearing,

she was fifty-eight. She had worked as a nursing-home activity director, in medical

records, and at a bakery. In September 1997 she had quit her last job, which was

providing home care for an Alzheimer’s patient. 

After the administrative hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that

(1) Van Winkle’s combined impairments--hypertension, headaches, and degenerative

joint disease of the feet and right knee, thoracic-spine degenerative changes,

recurrent moderate major depression, and dysthymic disorder--were severe, but not

of listing-level severity; (2) her statements about her inability to work were not

entirely credible; (3) the opinions of her mental-health providers were “in significant

contrast” to treatment notes; (4) she had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to

perform the full range of work activity without exertional limitations, and her RFC

was not significantly diminished by nonexertional limitations; and (5) her past

relevant work (PRW) would not require work functions precluded by any medically

determinable impairment. In a psychiatric review technique form (PRTF), the ALJ

found that Van Winkle was slightly restricted in daily-living activities and social

functioning; that she was seldom deficient in concentration, persistence, or pace; and

that she had never deteriorated or decompensated at work or in work-like settings. 

Van Winkle first argues that she was disabled under Listings 12.06 (anxietyrelated disorders) and 12.08 (personality disorders). We disagree. Van Winkle may

have met some of the Section A criteria for Listing 12.06, but she did not meet the

Section B or C criteria, see 28 U.S.C. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.06 (2002)
-3-

(claimant must meet requirements in A and B, or A and C); and as to Listing 12.08,

the record contains no clear and definite physician’s diagnosis of a personality

disorder, see 28 U.S.C. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00 D.1.a. (2002) (requiring

evidence from acceptable medical source showing whichever medically determinable

mental impairment is at issue in listing). We also reject Van Winkle’s arguments

about ordering a psychological consultation and assessing her ability to afford care,

because a psychological consultation was performed in February 1998, and nothing

in the record indicates that Van Winkle’s financial status prevented her from

obtaining care for her medical or psychological problems. 

Van Winkle contends that the ALJ failed to give proper weight to the opinions

of her treating mental-health professionals about her ability to work. We conclude

that the ALJ correctly discounted the September and December 1998 opinions of a

Saline County Counseling Clinic social worker and psychiatrist: those professionals

had quit treating Van Winkle in mid-June 1998, and their statements were not only

conclusory and vague, but were contradicted by their most recent assessments of Van

Winkle. See Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 2002) (when

treating physician’s opinion is inconsistent or contrary to medical evidence, it is

entitled to less weight). 

We disagree, however, with the ALJ’s decision to discount the July 1999

opinion of Van Winkle’s Community Counseling Service (CCS) treatment team that

Van Winkle was unable to maintain gainful employment because of her lack of

motivation, depressed episodes, and frequent anxiety attacks. First, Van Winkle’s

treatment at CCS, which started in August 1998 when she relocated, was

comprehensive and included a supported employment program in which Van Winkle

had participated since at least December 1998; thus, CCS treatment team members

had the opportunity from December 1998 to July 1999 to assess routinely Van

Winkle’s mental RFC. Second, as part of the supported employment program, Van

Winkle had apparently worked briefly in the office of psychiatrist Robert Farrell, who
-4-

was a member of the team. Third, the team’s opinion was consistent with the periodic

global-assessment-of-functioning findings of CCS staff, and was not entirely

inconsistent with Dr. Farrell’s contemporaneous monthly assessment that Van Winkle

was mildly depressed and was reporting more headaches and tension. Although CCS

records indicate Van Winkle had improved on medication and was at times cheerful

and participating appropriately, they also reflect repeated instances of increased

anxiety and depression with suicidal thoughts, insomnia, social isolation, and poor

concentration; the records thus fail to show any sustained period of improved

functioning. In these circumstances, the ALJ should have requested that the CCS

treatment team complete a PRTF and functional-capacity form to clarify how Van

Winkle’s mental problems impacted her ability to work. See Bowman v. Barnhart,

310 F.3d 1080, 1082-85 (8th Cir. 2002) (even if claimant is represented by counsel,

ALJ has duty to develop facts fully and fairly; where long-term treating doctor’s

entries and opinion letter were somewhat cursory, ALJ was obligated to contact him

for added evidence and clarification of claimant’s RFC). 

Van Winkle also challenges the ALJ’s credibility findings. We find that the

ALJ gave multiple valid reasons for discrediting her subjective physical complaints.

See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (if adequately explained and

supported, credibility findings are for ALJ to make). In contrast, two of the three

reasons the ALJ gave for discrediting Van Winkle’s subjective mental complaints are

not supported by substantial evidence. Contrary to the ALJ’s findings, Van Winkle

consistently sought treatment for her mental impairments; from her alleged date of

onset, she was either hospitalized or in outpatient treatment. And although there are

periodic reports of improvement by her mental-health providers, the record also

shows--and the ALJ failed to acknowledge--repeated instances of symptomatology

related to depression and anxiety, despite treatment. Cf. Bowman, 310 F.3d at 1083

(finding no evidence that medications alleviated claimant’s pain, swelling, and

depression to point where she could return to PRW). 
-5-

Finally, Van Winkle raises issues with the ALJ’s RFC findings, contending that

she has significant nonexertional limitations, both physical and mental. She argues,

at least implicitly, that the ALJ improperly concluded she could perform her PRW.

Because we conclude that the ALJ improperly discounted the July 1999 opinion of

the CCS case management team and improperly discredited Van Winkle’s subjective

mental complaints, the ALJ’s mental RFC findings--which essentially included no

limitations--are also called into question. See Pearsall, 274 F.3d at 1217-18 (ALJ is

responsible for determining RFC based on medical records, observations of treating

physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of limitations; ALJ must first

evaluate claimant’s credibility). 

Significantly, upon their review of the record, the Social Security

Administration (SSA) psychological professionals and vocational analysts

unanimously found nonexertional limitations, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 404.1569a(c),

416.969a(c) (2002) (nonexertional limitations include difficulty in functioning due

to anxiety or depression, handling detailed instructions, or maintaining attention and

concentration); on the PRTFs that the SSA psychologists completed, they found Van

Winkle often deficient in concentration, persistence, or pace; and both of the SSA

vocational analysts specifically concluded that Van Winkle could not perform her

PRW, see Banks v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 820, 827 (8th Cir. 2001) (after claimant

meets burden of proving she cannot perform PRW, burden shifts to Commissioner to

show there is other work claimant can perform; if nonexertional impairments exist,

grids may not be used and vocational expert testimony is required). Although the

ALJ justified his differing PRTF findings, and his conclusion about the lack of

significant nonexertional limitations, in part on the additional evidence he had before

him, we fail to see how the added evidence supports his conclusions. Thus, the ALJ

should use the PRTF and functional-capacity findings that he obtains from CCS staff

to reassess whether Van Winkle’s mental RFC precludes her PRW; and then, if

necessary, he should call a vocational expert to determine whether she can perform

other work. 
-6-

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court with instructions to

remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.