Harvey v. Barnhart
Decision Date | 24 May 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 03-2578.,03-2578. |
Citation | 368 F.3d 1013 |
Parties | James HARVEY, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant — Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James H. Green, argued, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Mark S. Naggi, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued, Kansas City, MO (Todd P. Graves and Frank V. Smith III, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MELLOY, BRIGHT, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
James Harvey appeals the district court's1 order affirming the Commissioner's determination he retained the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work and, therefore, was not disabled. We affirm.
An administrative law judge ("ALJ") determined that Harvey suffered from various mental and physical impairments that, collectively, were severe. However, the ALJ determined that these impairments neither met nor were equivalent to a listed impairment. The ALJ also determined that Harvey and Harvey's wife were not credible and that Harvey exaggerated his symptoms as well as his physical and mental limitations. Reviewing records of objective medical tests, reports from treating physicians, testimony from consulting physicians and a psychiatrist (only some of whom personally examined Harvey), testimony from a vocational expert, and testimony regarding Harvey's work history, daily activities and limitations, the ALJ determined that Harvey retained the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work as a security guard. The Social Security Appeals Council denied further review, and the ALJ's opinion became the Commissioner's final agency action. The district court affirmed. Harvey appeals.
We review the record as a whole and must affirm the Commissioner's findings if supported by substantial evidence. See Cunningham v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir.2000) (standard of review). In our review, we must consider evidence that is contrary to, as well as evidence that supports, the Commissioner's findings. Id. Here, substantial evidence in the record as a whole clearly supports the Commissioner's credibility and residual functional capacity determinations.
A consulting psychiatrist who examined but did not treat Harvey stated, inter alia, "symptom magnification syndrome"; "[q]uery secondary gain and/or malingering"; "[i]t is difficult to predict this individual's abilities to perform work-related functions based upon objective findings"; and "I doubt that he would be able to remain at work and remain productive during the course of an eight hour day." This opinion, which clearly supports the Commissioner's credibility determination, was equivocal at best regarding Harvey's residual functional capacity. Nevertheless, Harvey points to this opinion as evidence that the record shows he does not possess the residual functional capacity to perform his past work as a security guard. This and other evidence that Harvey cites in support of his position is largely based on his own subjective complaints.
Harvey's medical records showed, however, that his symptoms were basically controlled or controllable. His medical records showed some limitation in ability to lift and use his right hand, but did not contain any objective evidence of limitations that were as severe as those Harvey claimed in his application for benefits. The medical records contained no objective basis for a finding that Harvey had memory problems and contained only limited instances where Harvey claimed to have memory difficulties. Harvey did not mention memory loss or other mental health impairments on his application for benefits.
Harvey's treating physicians viewed him as not credible. They refused his requests for powerful prescription pain killers, noted repeatedly that his complaints were out of proportion with any identifiable medical causes, and recorded opinions such as ; ; "atypical presentation, but [patient's] history is so difficult to obtain with confidence"; and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bense v. Colvin
...those portions of Dr. Kamat's records which were consistent with the opinions of these non-examining sources. See Harvey v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that the ALJ properly relied on non-examining doctor's opinion because part of the record provided substantial s......
-
Webb v. Berryhill
...whole, especially when they are contradicted by the treating physician's medical opinion. Wagner, 499 F.3d at 849 ; Harvey v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing Jenkins v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 922, 925 (8th Cir. 1999) ). However, where opinions of non-examining, consulting phy......
-
Muckler v. Astrue
...a whole, especially when they are contradicted by the treating physician's medical opinion. Wagner, 499 F.3d at 849; Harvey v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir.2004) (citing Jenkins v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 922, 925 (8th Cir. 1999)). However, where opinions of non-examining, consulting phys......
-
Tompkins v. Colvin
...2009) (holding ALJ could rely on other opinion evidence after properly discounting treating-physician opinions); Harvey v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2004) (permitting relianceupon state-agency experts as part of record); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e) (same). The ALJ did......
-
Issue Topics
...testimony which indicated that he could perform responsibly in the workplace). The Eighth Circuit reiterated in Harvey v. Barnhart , 368 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2004) that it does not consider the opinions of non-examining, consulting physicians standing alone to be “substantial evidence.......
-
Issue topics
...testimony which indicated that he could perform responsibly in the workplace). The Eighth Circuit reiterated in Harvey v. Barnhart , 368 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2004) that it does not consider the opinions of non-examining, consulting physicians standing alone to be “substantial evidence.......
-
Issue topics
...testimony which indicated that he could perform responsibly in the workplace). The Eighth Circuit reiterated in Harvey v. Barnhart , 368 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8 th Cir. 2004) that it does not consider the opinions of non-examining, consulting physicians standing alone to be “substantial evidence......
-
Table of Cases
...Kan. 1999), aff’d, Hartter v. Apfel, 202 F.3d 282 (Table) (10th Cir. Jan. 11,2000)(unpub.), §§ 701.1, 702.5, 702.17 Harvey v. Barnhart , 368 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2004), 8th-04, § 1203.6 Harwood v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 1039, 1042-1043 (8th Cir. 1999), 8th-99, §§ 601.1, 1601.2 Harzewski v. Ch......