Opinion ID: 2819117
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: VA Disability Decision

Text: Baker first argues that the ALJ committed reversible error by failing to consider or even mention the VA's March 2, 2011 disability decision. Baker argues that our decision in Morrison v. Apfel controls. 146 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 1998). In Morrison, the VA had determined that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled. Id. at 628. We held that the VA finding was important enough to deserve explicit attention. We agree with other courts that findings of disability by other federal agencies, even though they are not binding on an ALJ, are entitled to some weight and must be considered in the ALJ's decision. Id. (citations omitted). In Morrison, we reversed and remanded the case. Id. at 629. Since Morrison, we have also considered this issue in Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575 (8th Cir. 2006). Similar to Morrison, Pelkey dealt with an ALJ's opinion that did not mention a VA decision that found the claimant to be disabled. Id. at 579. In Pelkey, however, we found that the ALJ did not err because he fully considered the evidence underlying the VA's final conclusion that Pelkey was . . . disabled. Id. In other words, even though the ALJ did not mention the VA disability determination, the ALJ addressed and discredited the various medical records upon which the VA disability determination was ultimately based. Id. at 579–80. We expressly distinguished Morrison on these grounds. Id. Here, Pelkey controls because the ALJ properly considered and discredited the underlying medical evidence upon which the VA decision was based. The VA decision only relied upon a few medical records, including Baker's medical history and Dr. Witkowski's January 26, 2011 medical opinion. The ALJ's decision -9- considered these sources in his decision. The ALJ walked through several of Baker's medical examinations, physical therapy reports, and other medical findings from x- rays and MRIs going as far back as the alleged date of onset. Further, the ALJ considered Dr. Witkowski's medical opinion but gave it little weight because he found that Dr. Witkowski's opinion was based upon Baker's subjective complaints as opposed to Dr. Witkowski's clinical findings. Dr. Witkowski's report specifically states that there was [n]o testing today. Testing was gathered throughout a review of CPRS. In regard to Baker's disabilities, Dr. Witkowski's report stated that [a]ll disabilities are listed as above. No testing was performed. Thus, the record supports the ALJ's conclusion that Dr. Witkowski's opinion was not based upon his own physical examination of Baker, but rather Baker's own subjective complaints. Accordingly, there appears to be little or no clinical corroboration of Dr. Witkowski's medical opinion that [i]t is very likely that [Baker's] back pains [would] interfere with all types of employment, or Dr. Witkowski's more specific finding that Baker can sit for 30 minutes and stand for 15 minutes and walk about one block. Consequently, the ALJ did not err by discounting the VA decision. The ALJ satisfied Pelkey by sufficiently considering the underlying medical evidence—Baker's medical history and Dr. Witkowski's January 26, 2011 opinion— upon which the VA decision relied. -10-