Crawford v. Colvin, No. 15-1239 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff appealed the denial of supplemental security income (SSI) where the ALJ found that plaintiff was not disabled because he could perform sedentary work. The court concluded that the ALJ correctly gave less weight to the nurse practitioner's medical opinion where it was inconsistent with other opinions from plaintiff's treating physicians. Further, the ALJ did not err by failing to obtain vocational expert testimony and instead relying solely on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Beam, Author, with Loken and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. The ALJ did not not err by failing to rely on a nurse practitioner's opinion and evaluation as she was not an acceptable medical source under the Social Security Administration's regulations and her medical opinion regarding his disability was contradicted by the weight of the other evidence; the objective evidence in the record showed claimant's nonexertional limitations did not restrict his ability to do sedentary work, and the ALJ correctly relied on the medical-vocational guidelines to find claimant was not disabled. [ December 04, 2015
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.