Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, contending that the ALJ failed to properly weigh certain medical opinions in the record. The court concluded that the ALJ did not err in discussing, reviewing or giving less weight to plaintiff's primary treating psychiatrist's opinion. In this case, the ALJ noted that the psychiatrist's opinion was inconsistent with the totality of the medical evidence and not supported by petitioner’s demonstrated level of functioning. Further, the court concluded that the ALJ properly explained her reasons for giving little weight to the “other” medical sources, and the ALJ did not err in finding the totality of the medical evidence and plaintiff's demonstrated level of functioning were inconsistent with these “other” medical sources’ opinions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lawson v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff 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. View "Crawford v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of supplemental security income (SSI) and disability insurance benefits (DIB). The court concluded that there is no proof that the ALJ did not consider the nurse practitioner's opinion as an "other" medical source; the ALJ rightly disregarded the nurse practitioner's opinion that plaintiff was unable to work because that involves an issue reserved for the Commissioner and is not the type of "medical opinion" to which the Commissioner gives controlling weight; and the ALJ's determination of plaintiff's residual functioning capacity (RFC) that she could perform the standing and walking requirements of light work is supported by substantial evidence. Further, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision to not include additional manipulative limitations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order upholding the denial of SSI and DIB benefits. View "Cypress v. Colvin" on Justia Law