Van Vickle v. Astrue, 07-2990.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Citation539 F.3d 825
Docket NumberNo. 07-2990.,07-2990.
PartiesKathy S. VAN VICKLE, Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee.
Decision Date21 August 2008

Amy J. Doll, argued, Morris, MN, for appellant.

Janet M. Gumm, SSA, argued, Chicago, IL (Anne Kenny Kleinman, Special AUSA SSA, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BYE, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Kathy Van Vickle appeals the judgment of the district court1 upholding the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny her application for disability insurance benefits. We affirm.

I.

On October 23, 2003, Van Vickle filed an application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Van Vickle claimed that she could not work because she suffered from seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (adult Still's disease) fibromyalgia, cervicalgia (neck pain), and degenerative disc disease, which caused her extreme fatigue and prevented her from sitting, standing, or walking for long periods of time. The regional commissioner denied Van Vickle's application initially and again on reconsideration. She then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on August 18, 2005.

At the hearing, Van Vickle testified that she quit her previous job as a social worker, primarily because of the pain in her neck and back. She claimed that she could not sit for longer than twenty minutes without "fidgeting." Van Vickle also claimed that she suffered from "extreme fatigue," although she did not mention fatigue as a reason she stopped working. Van Vickle further testified that she suffered from side effects from her medications. In particular, she testified that methotrexate, which she took every Wednesday for her Still's disease, made her so nauseous that she could not work on Wednesday and sometimes on Thursday.

A vocational expert testified that a person of the same age, who possesses the same education and past work experience as Van Vickle, could work as a social worker even if the person was limited to (1) lifting and/or carrying ten pounds occasionally, and less than ten pounds frequently, (2) standing and/or walking with normal breaks for a total of two hours in an eight hour work day, (3) sitting with normal breaks for a total of six hours of an eight hour work day, and (4) changing position between sitting and standing every thirty minutes. The vocational expert testified, however, that if the person needed to change position every twenty minutes or take a day off each week for medical problems, as Van Vickle had testified, the person could not be gainfully employed.

Following the five-step evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4), the ALJ determined that Van Vickle was not disabled. At steps one through three, the ALJ found that Van Vickle was not engaging in substantial gainful activity, that the combination of her impairments was severe, and that her impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. At step four, the ALJ found that Van Vickle was not disabled because she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform her past relevant work as a hospital social worker as it is typically performed in the national economy. Specifically, the ALJ found that Van Vickle had the RFC to "lift and/or carry 10 pounds occasionally and less than 10 pounds frequently, stand and/or walk (with normal breaks) for a total of about 2 hours in an 8-hour workday, if allowed to change positions every thirty minutes, [and] sit (with normal breaks) for a total of about 6 hours in an 8-hour work day, if allowed to change positions every thirty minutes."

The ALJ found that Van Vickle's "medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms," but that her "statements concerning the intensity, duration and limiting effects of these symptoms were not entirely credible." The ALJ noted that his RFC finding was consistent with Van Vickle's daily activities and the reports of three treating and examining physicians. The ALJ specifically mentioned that he found Van Vickle's testimony of her problem with ongoing fatigue to be in conflict with the medical opinions of Van Vickle's doctors, the lack of medical support indicating an ongoing problem with fatigue, and Van Vickle's reported daily activities. Although Van Vickle testified at the hearing that she suffered from side effects from her medication, the ALJ noted that Van Vickle had not reported such significant side effects to her doctors.

Van Vickle petitioned the Appeals Council for review. She submitted new evidence, including a report from Lisa Neubauer, an occupational therapist, who opined that Van Vickle was "performing below the sedentary physical demand level." Neubauer reported that Van Vickle's "maximum weight handling is between 5 and 10 lbs," and that her "[s]itting tolerance ... is limited at between 10 and 20 minutes with repositioning." The Appeals Council considered the new evidence, but denied review because it "found that the information [did] not provide a basis for changing the [ALJ]'s decision." Upon denial of the request for review, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 822 (8th Cir.1992).

The district court upheld the Commissioner's decision. On appeal, Van Vickle argues that there is not substantial evidence on the record to support the ALJ's adverse credibility finding, and that the case should be remanded in light of the new evidence presented to the Appeals Council.

II.

We review the district court's decision de novo, and will affirm if the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, including the new evidence that was considered by the Appeals Council. Cunningham v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir. 2000); Nelson v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 363, 366 (8th Cir.1992).2 "Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the Commissioner's decision." Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir.2000). We consider evidence that "supports as well as detracts from the Commissioner's decision, and we will not reverse simply because some evidence may support the opposite conclusion." Hamilton v. Astrue, 518 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir.2008) (internal quotations omitted).

Van Vickle argues on appeal that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's finding that her testimony was not entirely credible. An ALJ may discount a claimant's subjective complaints if there are inconsistencies in the record as a whole. Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 802-03 (8th Cir.2005); Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). "Where adequately explained and supported, credibility findings are for the ALJ to make." Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir.2000). Although Van Vickle challenges the ALJ's credibility determination as a whole, she takes specific issue with the findings by the ALJ that she can sit for up to thirty minutes without changing position (Van Vickle testified that she needed to change position every twenty minutes), that she does not have significant side effects from her medication (she testified that she had to miss work one day per week because one of her medications made her nauseous), and that her subjective complaints of extreme fatigue were not entirely credible.

There is substantial evidence on the record to support the ALJ's finding that Van Vickle can sit for thirty minutes without changing position. Although Van Vickle testified that she had to change position every twenty minutes or she would be "fidgeting," she also testified that she rides in her car for twenty to thirty minutes and can "push" herself to ride an hour. Two of Van Vickle's treating physicians, Dr. Kristi Arel and Dr. Sunny Kim, reported that Van Vickle should change positions every thirty minutes. The report from Neubauer, the occupational therapist, takes a different view. Neubauer states that Van Vickle's sitting tolerance is ten to twenty minutes. But the fact that Van Vickle can point to some contradictory evidence in the record does not lead to a conclusion that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. In certain circumstances, an ALJ may determine that an occupational therapist's opinion outweighs the opinion of a treating physician, such as where the occupational therapist "has seen the individual more often than the treating source."3 Social Security Ruling (SSR) 06-3p, 71 Fed.Reg. 45,593, 2006 WL 2329939 (Aug. 9, 2006). Here, however, there is no evidence that Neubauer saw Van Vickle more than once, while Drs. Arel and Kim saw Van Vickle on several occasions. Thus, it would be entirely appropriate for an ALJ to give more weight to Van Vickle's treating doctors' opinions. Riley v. Shalala, 18 F.3d 619, 622 (8th Cir.1994).

The ALJ's determination that Van Vickle's medications do not create any significant side effects that prevent her from working is also supported by substantial evidence. Van Vickle testified that while she was still working, she was home sick each Wednesday because she felt so nauseous from taking methotrexate. The reports from Dr. Paul Florell, who treated Van Vickle's Still's disease, tell another story. For example, on May 5, 2003, Dr. Florell notes that Van Vickle had "a couple mouth sores or nasal sores from the methotrexate," but there was no mention of nausea in the report. In addition, Dr. Florell notes that he told Van Vickle that she could stop taking the methotrexate for two weeks, but that she decided to "continue with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
308 cases
  • Johnston v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • September 30, 2016
    ...applicable SSR 96-9p was an arguable deficiency in opinion writing that had no practical effect on decision); Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825, 830 (8th Cir. 2008) ("There is no indication that the ALJ would have decided differently had he read the hand-written notation to say 'walk' rath......
  • Frieden v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • September 11, 2015
    ...indication that the ALJ would have reached a different conclusion had he correctly recited Dr. Long's findings. See Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825, 830 (8th Cir. 2008) ("There is no indication that the ALJ would have decided differently had he read the hand-written notation to say 'walk......
  • Reinhardt v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • December 15, 2015
    ...the full range of sedentary work; therefore, that was not a sufficient reason to set aside the ALJ's decision); Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825, 830 (8th Cir. 2008) ("There is no indication that the ALJ would have decided differently had he read the hand-written notation to say 'walk' ra......
  • Flowers v. Colvin, Case No. 4:15CV177NCC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • December 18, 2015
    ...Rohatgi's comments, this was only one of many factors considered by the ALJ and was not outcome determinative. See Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825, 830 (8th Cir. 2008) ("There is no indication that the ALJ would have decided differently had he read the hand-written notation to say 'walk'......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Case Index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • May 4, 2015
    ..., 550 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2008), 7th-08 Schmidt v. Astrue , 496 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. Aug. 8, 2007), 7th-07 Van Vickle v. Astrue , 539 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. Aug. 21, 2008), 8th-08 Walls v. Barnhart , 296 F.3d 287 (4th Cir. July 15, 2002), 4th-02 Zirnsak v. Colvin , 777 F.3d 607 (3d Cir. D......
  • Standards of Review and Federal Court Remedies
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Disability Advocate's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2014 Contents
    • August 18, 2014
    ..., 47 F.3d 951, 953 (8th Cir. 1995), and of course this panel must follow circuit precedent. - - -End Footnote- - - Van Vickle v. Astrue , 539 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir. 2008). In the Eads case, the Seventh Circuit explained the split in more detail: Our conclusion that courts may not reverse a......
  • Case index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Preliminary Sections
    • August 2, 2014
    ...F.3d 620 (7 th Cir. Dec. 15, 2008), 7 th -08 Schmidt v. Astrue , 496 F.3d 833 (7 th Cir. Aug. 8, 2007), 7 th -07 Van Vickle v. Astrue , 539 F.3d 825 (8 th Cir. Aug. 21, 2008), 8 th -08 Walls v. Barnhart , 296 F.3d 287 (4 th Cir. July 15, 2002), 4 th -02 § 105.6 RFC Forms Anderson v. Astrue ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...744, 745 (E.D. Mo. 1996), § 702.4, 702.10, 1702.7 Van v. Barnhart , 483 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2007), 9th-07 Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. Aug. 21, 2008), 8th-08 Van Wormer v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs ., 875 F.2d 869 (Table), No. 88-1601 (6th Cir. May 23, 1989......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT