Holmstrom v. Massanari

Decision Date12 September 2001
Docket NumberNo. 01-1432,DEFENDANT-APPELLEE,PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,01-1432
Parties(8th Cir. 2001) ROGER HOLMSTROM,, v. LARRY G. MASSANARI, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Submitted:
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] Before Morris Sheppard Arnold and Bright, Circuit Judges, and Bogue,2 District Judge.

Bright, Circuit Judge

Roger Holmstrom appeals the district court's affirmance of the Social Security Commissioner's decision to deny his application for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. Holmstrom argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) improperly discounted his testimony and the opinions of his treating physicians, resulting in an incorrectly determined residual functioning capacity (RFC) and a denial of benefits that is not supported by substantial evidence. The record as a whole indicates that Holmstrom has mental impairments and a deteriorating physical condition qualifying him for SSI benefits as of November 5, 1998. Holmstrom reapplied for SSI benefits in May 2000 and was awarded benefits. This appeal covers the period between Holmstrom's initial application and his subsequent award of SSI benefits. We reverse and direct that Holmstrom receive SSI benefits based on his total disability as of November 5, 1998.

I. BACKGROUND

Holmstrom applied for SSI benefits in November 1995, claiming disability chiefly due to lower back pain and depression. The Commissioner denied Holmstrom's application and his request for reconsideration. Holmstrom then received a hearing before an ALJ who, on August 17, 1998, issued a decision denying SSI benefits. Holmstrom requested review by the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration and submitted additional evidence. The Appeals Council made that evidence part of the record, but denied Holmstrom's request for review. Holmstrom then sought review by the district court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court's judgment affirmed the ALJ's decision, and Holmstrom appealed to this court.

The evidence before the ALJ included Holmstrom's medical records from Veterans' Administration (VA) facilities in California and Nebraska.3 These records show a long history of lower back pain beginning with his fall from a ladder in 1986. The records from his years in California contain X-rays, CT scans and MRIs performed between 1991 and 1995 that show narrowed disc spaces, spur formation, degenerative disc disease, and disc bulges or herniations in the lower lumbar and upper sacral region of Holmstrom's spine. X-rays from 1996 show a "complete loss" of the disc space between two vertebrae in his lower back. Throughout his time in California, Holmstrom took prescribed medications for his back, including daily doses of muscle relaxants, 2400 milligrams of ibuprofen, and painkillers containing codeine for "breakthrough pain." In attempts to reduce his back pain, Holmstrom underwent trigger point injections, physical therapy, hypnosis, and use of a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator unit. The medical records indicate that, on occasion, Holmstrom received temporary and partial pain relief from these treatments. In 1996, doctors diagnosed Holmstrom with major depression and treated him with individual and group therapy and a prescribed antidepressant medication. By the end of that year, Holmstrom's psychiatrist recorded that the depression was "in remission." In April 1997, Holmstrom reduced his intake of the antidepressant medication on his own because of side effects; at his next visit the doctor he saw acceded to this.

After Holmstrom applied for SSI benefits, the California Department of Social Services requested consultative examinations. In March 1996, an orthopedist examined Holmstrom and found him normal in all respects save for decreased range of motion in his lumbar spine. An RFC assessment in October 1996 incorporated this information and concluded that Holmstrom had virtually no physical limitations. The doctor who performed an April 1996 consultative psychiatric exam concluded that Holmstrom could function adequately in work situations.

The medical records from the VA medical center in Omaha, Nebraska, indicate that Holmstrom began to see doctors there in December 1997. He began seeing Dr. Carmen Britt, who became his treating physician for his back, in February 1998. Dr. Britt continued Holmstrom's medication regime of muscle relaxants, ibuprofen and codeine pain killers. In June 1998, Dr. Britt completed an RFC assessment form, on which she indicated that Holmstrom could lift and carry up to ten pounds occasionally and bend or reach up occasionally, but should not squat, crawl, kneel, twist, or climb. In answer to several other questions regarding Holmstrom's limitations, Dr. Britt wrote on the form "ask the patient." The record indicates that Dr. Britt had seen Holmstrom on three occasions before she completed the RFC assessment.

In December 1997, Holmstrom first saw Dr. William Egan at the Omaha VA medical center for treatment of his depression. Dr. Egan restarted full dosages of Holmstrom's antidepressant medication. Because Holmstrom was once again troubled by side effects of the drug, Dr. Egan soon changed the prescription to a different antidepressant. He subsequently doubled, then tripled, the dosage of this new medication. Dr. Egan referred Holmstrom to Dr. David Kopacz for a determination of whether Holmstrom had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from his combat service in Vietnam. Dr. Kopacz diagnosed Holmstrom with PTSD and admitted him to the VA PTSD clinic. In May 1998, Dr. Egan filled out a mental RFC questionnaire. On this form he concluded that Holmstrom's psychiatric status severely affected his work-related abilities (e.g., carrying out short and simple instructions, maintaining regular attendance and punctuality, and sustaining an ordinary routine without special supervision). Dr. Egan wrote that he considered Holmstrom disabled. The record indicates that Holmstrom had been seen by Dr. Egan on four occasions before Dr. Egan completed the RFC assessment.

The ALJ held a hearing in May 1998 and a supplemental hearing two months later. Holmstrom testified that he had not worked since 1986 and that he could not lift more than ten pounds or bend forward or backward because of the pain caused by these actions. He could sit no more than thirty minutes, nor stand more than fifteen minutes, before changing position. If alternating between standing and sitting did not alleviate his pain, he tried lying down, which usually gave him some relief.4 He stated that he needed to lie down several times each day for up to an hour at a time. If lying down did not alleviate the pain, Holmstrom took his codeine painkillers; his prescription allotted him forty-five painkillers per month. He noted that the condition had consistently deteriorated over the previous several years; things he could do two years before, he could no longer do at the time of the hearing.

Virginia Holmstrom, the claimant's sister-in-law, with whom he had lived much of the previous six years, also testified. She stated that Holmstrom could not sit for more than thirty minutes at a time. He changed positions frequently to alleviate his back pain. He laid down for more than thirty minutes about three times per day because of his back pain. Ms. Holmstrom also stated that she thought the claimant had last worked in 1993 or 1994 as a free-lance repairman.5

After the ALJ issued her decision, the Appeals Council accepted into the record additional medical evidence, covering a period up to, and including, November 5, 1998. This additional evidence included records from office visits to Dr. Kopacz. On August 20, Holmstrom reported that his pain decreased only when he laid down flat, and Dr. Kopacz noted that Holmstrom was physically uncomfortable and changed positions frequently in attempts to relieve his pain. Dr. Kopacz also noted that Holmstrom was "obviously severely impaired due to chronic pain as well as symptoms of [PTSD] and depression." In September, Dr. Kopacz increased Holmstrom's antidepressant medication dosage again, to four times the originally prescribed amount. In a subsequent visit, Dr. Kopacz lowered the dosage to its original level but added another medication intended to treat both depression and pain. The added evidence also contained an October 1998 MRI showing that the lower lumbar and upper sacral region of Holmstrom's back contained "advanced degenerative disc and facet disease," a possible disc herniation or bony outgrowth, and neural foramen stenosis.

II. DISCUSSION

We review to determine whether substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the findings of the ALJ. Beckley v. Apfel, 152 F.3d 1056, 1059 (8th Cir. 1998). "Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support a decision." Id. We consider evidence that fairly detracts from, as well as that which supports, the ALJ's decision. Id.

The ALJ applied the standard five-step procedure for determining whether Holmstrom is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The ALJ concluded that, although Holmstrom has a severe impairment and does not have the RFC to perform his past work repairing security alarms, the Commissioner had carried his burden of establishing that there are jobs in the national economy which Holmstrom could perform. See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1147 (8th Cir. 1982). Therefore, Holmstrom was not entitled to SSI benefits for disability.

In concluding that there exist jobs Holmstrom could perform, the ALJ relied on a vocational expert's response to a hypothetical posed by the ALJ. The hypothetical assumed that Holmstrom's impairments included chronic lower back pain, degenerative disc disease in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
351 cases
  • Steele v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 5 Junio 2012
    ...than any other physician's opinion when [it] consists of nothing more than vague, conclusory statements.'") (quoting Holmstrom v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 715, 721 (8th Cir.2001) and Piepgras v. Chater, 76 F.3d 233, 236 (8th Cir.1996)). Fourth, the ALJ provided good reasons for not giving contro......
  • Alia D. v. Kijakazi
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 27 Julio 2022
    ... ... 2015); ... Bauer v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 734 F.Supp.2d 773, 806 ... (D. Minn. 2010); LaCanne v. Massanari, No ... 00-cv-2339 (ADM/JMM), 2001 WL 1640124, at *2 (D. Minn. July ... 30, 2001). Likewise, “a claimant's noncompliance ... 2018) (quoting Toland v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 931, 937 ... (8th Cir. 2014)); see, Wildman, 596 F.3d at 967; ... Holmstrom v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 715, 721 (8th Cir ... 2001) ...          Moreover, ... LICSW Werner's opinion appears to be ... ...
  • Tindall-Kolthoff v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 27 Septiembre 2016
    ...any other physician's opinion when [it] consists of nothing more than vague, conclusory statements.'") (quoting Holmstrom v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 715, 721 (8th Cir. 2001) and Piepgras v. Chater, 76 F.3d 233, 236 (8th Cir. 1996)). Fourth, as stated above, when Dr. Kukkar rendered his opinion ......
  • Fleming-Griffin v. Colvin, Case No. 2:13CV69 CAS (NCC)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 12 Agosto 2014
    ...any other physician's opinion when [it] consists of nothing more than vague, conclusory statements.'") (quoting Holmstrom v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 715, 721 (8th Cir. 2001) and Piepgras v. Chater, 76 F.3d 233, 236 (8th Cir. 1996)). Finally, the ALJ identified good reasons for not giving Dr. Go......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Issue Topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Collection - James' Best Materials. Volume 2
    • 5 Mayo 2015
    ...medical evidence to support the claimant’s subjective complaints, the record as a whole does support them. Holmstrom v. Massanari , 270 F.3d 715, 722 (8th Cir. 2001). The record as a whole, including the claimant’s testimony and all of the medical records, corroborated Holmstrom’s subjectiv......
  • Assessment of disability issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Contents
    • 2 Agosto 2014
    ...record was inconsistent with these RFC assessments, “their assessments need not be accorded controlling weight.” Holmstrom v. Massanari , 270 F.3d 715, 721 (8 th Cir. 2001). Further, “the checklist format, generality, and incompleteness of the assessments limit their evidentiary value.” Id.......
  • Issue topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • 4 Mayo 2015
    ...medical evidence to support the claimant’s subjective complaints, the record as a whole does support them. Holmstrom v. Massanari , 270 F.3d 715, 722 (8 th Cir. 2001). The record as a whole, including the claimant’s testimony and all of the medical records, corroborated Holmstrom’s subjecti......
  • Case index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Preliminary Sections
    • 2 Agosto 2014
    ...F.3d 1208 (10 th Cir. May 4, 2004), 10 th -04 Heino v. Astrue , 578 F.3d 873 (8 th Cir. Aug. 27, 2009), 8 th -09 Holmstrom v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 715 (8 th Cir. Oct. 29, 2001), 8 th -01 House v. Astrue , 500 F.3d 741 (8 th Cir. Sept. 14, 2007), 8 th -07 Howe v. Astrue , 499 F.3d 835 (8 th C......
  • 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