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

Heading: Examining Medical Sources

Text: Next, Baker argues that the ALJ erred by giving insufficient weight to the examining medical opinion of Davis,3 and more specifically, his September 9, 2009 RFC questionnaire. Baker concedes that the opinion of Davis, a Physician's Assistant, cannot be considered as an acceptable medical source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a); see also Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 886 (8th Cir. 2006) (finding that a social worker, nurse practitioner, and community support service provider could not be considered as a treating source under the social security regulations). Therefore, even if Davis had a treating relationship with Baker, Davis's opinion is not subject to receiving more weight or controlling weight as are medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2). Regardless, Baker rightfully argues that Davis's opinion can still be considered by the ALJ as an other source. Id. § 404.1513(d)(1) (listing physician's assistants as such a source); see also Lacroix, 465 F.3d at 886–87. Under this category of other medical evidence, the ALJ has more discretion and is permitted to consider any inconsistencies found within the record. Raney v. Barnhart, 396 F.3d 1007, 1010 (8th Cir. 2005) (quotation and citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's discretion to give Davis's opinion little weight because, in the ALJ's words, Davis's opinion is not supported by other substantial medical evidence of record. Sources in the record, even those of treating physicians, are entitled to less weight when inconsistent or contrary to the medical evidence as a whole. Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 925 (8th Cir. 2011) (quotation and citation omitted). Davis's opinion that Baker could only sit for 30 minutes, stand 3 As has been previously indicated, Baker challenges the weight the ALJ gave to both Dr. Witkowski's and Davis's opinions. Given our disposition of Dr. Witkowski's opinion in section II.A, we only address the weight given to Davis's opinion in this section. -11- for 20 minutes, would have to get up and walk every 15 minutes, and could only sit and stand for a total of six hours each day is contradicted by the medical opinions of Drs. Knosp, Reed, Severson, and Bane. Dr. Knosp opined Baker to be only partially credible and concluded he could stand or walk for six hours and could sit for six hours in a workday. Dr. Reed confirmed this finding after a review of Dr. Knosp's opinion. Dr. Bane also opined that Baker could walk for about six hours and sit for about six hours in a workday. Dr. Severson opined that Baker could stand for 205 minutes, sit for 205 minutes, and walk for 60 minutes in a workday. Thus, we find substantial evidence supports the ALJ's exercise of discretion to give Davis's opinion little weight.