Administrative : Supplemental Security Income – Treating Doctor’s Opinion

Where a claimant of supplemental security income challenged the denial of benefits, the commissioner was entitled to give less weight to the treating doctor’s opinion because it was based on the claimant’s subjective complaints, and substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits.

Rubber stamp

Dissenting opinion by Bright, J.: “I fear that the majority’s decision today reflects this court’s increasing tendency to rubber stamp an ALJ’s action instead of subjecting it to the ‘scrutinizing analysis’ required by our precedent. The ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Allen’s opinion was error in light of the record as a whole. Because the ALJ failed to provide ‘good reasons’ for rejecting Dr. Allen’s opinion, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), and because such error was not harmless, I would reverse and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the ALJ so that it may reconsider Cline’s application after giving Dr. Allen’s opinion proper weight.”

Judgment is affirmed.

Cline v. Colvin (MLW No. 67160/Case No. 14-1260 – 13 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8^th Circuit, Riley, C.J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Ray, J. (E. Gregory Wallace, Raleigh, North Carolina, argued for appellant; Anthony W. Bartels appeared on the brief) (Jonathan R. Clark, Dallas, argued for appellee; Angelina Reese appeared on the brief).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)