Opinion ID: 1302959
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Drs. Marchman's and Kikendall's Opinions

Text: On July 22, 2003, Dr. James Marchman, a consulting psychologist, examined Wildman and concluded that she was not capable of working. Specifically, Dr. Marchman explained that Wildman's chronic depression contributes to her difficulties but it is secondary to physical problems in terms of impairing her functioning. He also noted that Wildman had somewhat impaired concentration and short-term memory and was limited in maintaining a proper pace. On June 14, 2004, Dr. Marchman's associate, Dr. Kathleen Kikendall, examined Wildman. Dr. Kikendall concluded that Wildman would have a great deal of difficulty performing even minimally in a work environment. She concluded that Wildman was in what might be the final stages of liver disease, had difficulty following instructions, and had memory limitations. The ALJ disregarded both psychologists' opinions because they were based largely on Wildman's statements and subjective physical complaints. He also emphasized that analyzing Wildman's physical impairments was beyond their expertise as psychologists. Wildman argues that the ALJ erroneously disregarded the opinions of Drs. Marchman and Kikendall. We disagree. After reviewing the opinions, we agree that the psychologists largely based their determination that Wildman could not work on their analysis of Wildman's physical ailments. Since this is indeed beyond their expertise as psychologists, the ALJ did not err when he disregarded their opinions for this reason. See Brosnahan v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 671, 676 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding that an ALJ properly discounted consulting psychologist's opinion because it was based partly on consideration of physical impairments, an area outside the psychologist's expertise). Moreover, the ALJ did not err when he discounted their opinions because they were based largely on Wildman's subjective complaints. See Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 709 (8th Cir.2007) (holding that the ALJ was entitled to discount an opinion where the opinion was based largely on the claimant's subjective complaints rather than on objective medical evidence).