Brenda Haught v. Michael Astrue, No. 07-2903 (8th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. ALJ gave valid reasons for discounting the medical-source statement of claimant's treating physician; challenge to hypothetical posed to vocational expert rejected.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-2903 ___________ Brenda Haught, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: August 21, 2008 Filed: September 23, 2008 ___________ Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Brenda Haught appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits (DIB). Haught applied for DIB in January 2004, alleging that she had been disabled since October 2002 from bipolar disorder and anxiety. Following an October 2005 hearing, where she was counseled, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that her depressed mood, anxiety, and personality disorder were severe impairments and she could not perform her past relevant work, but that the 1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment, her subjective complaints were not entirely credible, and based on her residual functional capacity (RFC), she was not disabled either under the Medical Vocational Guidelines or based on a vocational expert s (VE s) testimony in response to a hypothetical. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. This court reviews de novo a district court s decision affirming the denial of benefits. See Hamilton v. Astrue, 518 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir. 2008) (Commissioner s decision must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence in record as whole; substantial evidence is relevant evidence that reasonable mind would find adequate to support decision). Haught s primary argument is that the ALJ erred by not adopting the medicalsource statement of Richard Jirovec, her treating physician, and that the ALJ failed to consider the relevant factors for evaluating opinion evidence enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6). We disagree. The ALJ expressed valid reasons for giving the medical-source statement little weight, including that it was not supported by Dr. Jirovec s own treatment records: the records contained few abnormal mentalassessment findings, and these were noted principally when Haught reportedly stopped taking her medication; the records also noted that Haught s symptoms were controlled by medication when she took it; and Dr. Jirovec did not document any psychologically based limitations. See Hamilton, 518 F.3d at 610 (ALJ must give good reasons for according little weight to treating physician s opinion); Leckenby v. Astrue, 487 F.3d 626, 632 (8th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that treating physician s opinion does not automatically control or obviate need to evaluate record as whole; and that ALJ s decision to discount treating physician s medical-source statement was upheld where limitations were never mentioned in numerous treatment records or supported by any explanation); Schultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that if impairment can be controlled by treatment, it cannot be considered disabling); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (more weight will be given to opinion when medical source presents relevant evidence, such as medical signs, in support of opinion). -2- We also reject Haught s related challenge to the hypothetical that the ALJ posed to the VE. See Robson v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 389, 392 (8th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that VE s testimony is substantial evidence when it is based on accurately phrased hypothetical capturing concrete consequences of claimant s limitations). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
