Source: http://mo.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180328_0000577.EMO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:43:18+00:00

Document:
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Defendant.
Although Bates' application was made based on her physical impairments, the medical record also revealed severe mental impairments, which are the subject of this appeal. The record contains two medical opinions regarding Bates' mental health impairments. Dr. Kirmach Natani, a Social Security consulting psychologist, examined Bates and provided a written medical opinion on September 9, 2013. (Tr. 250-253.) A non-examining agency psychologist, Dr. Robert Cottone, examined Bates' medical records and provided an opinion on October 9, 2013. (Tr. 58-60.) The administrative law judge (ALJ) gave significant weight specifically to the global assessment functioning (GAF) score assessed by Dr. Natani, but did not comment on the weight given to the opinion as a whole. The ALJ also gave Dr. Cottone's opinion significant weight. A substantial portion of Bates' medical treatment regarding her mental impairments occurred after the doctors' opinions were written.
Bates asserts that the administrative law judge (ALJ) failed to properly weigh and consider the medical opinion evidence. Specifically, Bates states the ALJ erred by not weighing Dr. Natani's opinion and giving significant weight to Dr. Cottone's opinion. The Commissioner contends that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. For the following reasons, the Court will affirm the ALJ's decision.
The Social Security Act defines disability as an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 416(i)(1)(A). The standard of review is narrow. Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001). This Court reviews the decision of the ALJ to determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind would find adequate support for the ALJ's decision. Smith v. Shalala, 31 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1994). The Court determines whether evidence is substantial by considering evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's decision as well as evidence that supports it. Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir. 2006). The Court may not reverse just because substantial evidence exists that would support a contrary outcome or because the Court would have decided the case differently. Id. If, after reviewing the record as a whole, the Court finds it possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the Commissioner's finding, the Commissioner's decision must be affirmed. Masterson v. Barnhart, 363 F.3d 731, 736 (8th Cir. 2004). The Court must affirm the Commissioner's decision so long as it conforms to the law and is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Collins ex rel. Williams v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 726, 729 (8th Cir. 2003).
The ALJ found that Bates had the severe impairments of degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine, obesity, anxiety disorder, depression, and polysubstance abuse. (Tr. 12.) The RFC is defined as what the claimant can do despite his or her limitations, and includes an assessment of physical abilities and mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a). The RFC is a function-by-function assessment of an individual's ability to do work related activities on a regular and continuing basis. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1 (July 2, 1996). It is the ALJ's responsibility to determine the claimant's RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians, and the claimant's own descriptions of his limitations. Pearsall, 274 F.3d at 1217. A RFC determination made by an ALJ will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Cox, 471 F.3d at 907.
Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, and what the claimant can still do despite impairments and physical or mental restrictions. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(a)(2). All medical opinions, regardless of the source, are weighed based on (1) whether the provider examined the claimant; (2) whether the provider is a treating source; (3) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, including nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) supportability of opinion with medical signs, laboratory findings, and explanation; (5) consistency with the record as a whole; (6) specialization; and (7) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). Now the Court will address each doctor's opinion in turn.

References: § 416
 v. 
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 416
 § 416
 § 416