8th Circuit affirms SSA denial of disability benefits

Summary

• The 8th Circuit affirmed the Social Security Administration‘s denial of disability benefits to veteran Christopher Bonham.
• The court found the ALJ properly relied on objective medical evidence when assessing Bonham’s residual functional capacity (RFC).
• Judges ruled SSA regulations permit ALJs to evaluate RFC using all relevant medical evidence, not solely physician opinions.
• A dissenting judge argued the record lacked sufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s findings.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) properly relied upon objective medical evidence to determine that a veteran’s claim for disability benefits should be denied, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 2.

A veteran with a long history of neck and back problems, Christopher Bonham had spinal fusion surgery in October 2012. In 2016, after repeated trips to the emergency room and to various doctors for treatment, Bonham underwent a Veterans Administration Compensation and Pension examination performed by a physician’s associate (PA), who concluded that Bonham was unable to use his left arm.

The VA granted him limited disability benefits.

Five years later, Bonham applied to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for disability benefits, alleging a disability onset date of May 12, 2012. He alleged several severe impairments, including degenerative disk disease, cervical spondylosis, left ankle pain, hypertension, sinus problems, unspecified depressive disorder and alcohol abuse.

At an administrative hearing, Bonham and a vocational expert testified. Bonham told the ALJ that he was unable to use his left arm, was almost bedridden, cannot bend down and could only lift one two-liter bottle of soda in his left arm.

Bonham presented no medical opinion evidence regarding his ability to perform work. His attorney suggested the ALJ sent him out for a medical exam.

The ALJ denied the benefits application.

After the SSA Appeals Council denied his appeal, Bonham sought judicial review in federal court, arguing that remand to the agency was necessary because the record contained only one medical opinion and that the ALJ did not sufficiently develop the record and base her residual functional capacity (RFC) on substantial evidence.

The district court upheld the denial of benefits and Bonham appealed.

Judge James B. Loken affirmed, joined by Judge Ralph R. Erickson.

The ALJ denied Bonham’s SSA disability claim at steps four and five of the SSA’s sequential evaluation process because she found that he has the RFC to perform his past relevant work as generally performed and to make an adjustment to other available work in the economy.

Bonham countered that the ALJ relied on impermissible inferences about his ability to work because she based her decision on non-functional medical reports and clinical findings that did not assess his functional ability, and therefore violated her duty to develop the record and render an RFC determination that was supported by substantial evidence.

While the ALJ is responsible for developing the record fairly and fully, the ALJ has no duty to seek clarification of medical opinions if the record contains other detailed clinical evidence of the claimant’s limitations, the court said.

Bonham’s contention that an RFC determination may not be based on inferences drawn from “objective medical data” (such as clinical examinations and diagnostic imaging) and must instead be based on a medical professional’s opinion was fundamentally contrary to controlling SSA regulations, the court explained, pointing to § 404.1545(a)(3) and 8th Circuit precedents applying the standard.

“The notion that there is no ‘functional evidence’ in Bonham’s extensive medical records is ludicrous,” the court said. “For example, during [PA’s evaluation], Bonham claimed that he was not able to walk or stand, a claim he repeated at the hearing; [the PA] rejected this claim because Bonham did both at the evaluation. Consistent with § 404.1545(a)(3), the ALJ properly ‘assess[ed Bonham’s] residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence.’”

An RFC must be based on some reliable medical evidence about the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace, not that the evidence must be functional in-and-of-itself, the court said.

Nor was the court swayed that the ALJ’s RFC determination was not supported by substantial evidence because it was based on inferences impermissibly drawn from the objective medical reports, failed to identify some medical evidence of Bonham’s ability to function in the workplace and ignored medical evidence in the record supporting Bonham’s reported limitations.

“The ALJ concluded, after a thorough and systematic review of these medical records and other evidence in the administrative record, that Bonham was not disabled,” the court wrote. “As required, the ALJ based her decision on ample medical evidence about Bonham’s ability to function in the workplace.”

In her decision, the ALJ discussed Bonham’s scans, physical exams and tests during the relevant period and recognized the medical and other evidence supporting Bonham’s chronic pain and symptoms but concluded the record as a whole did not support the degree and severity he alleged.

“This was not a determination lacking ‘some medical evidence of the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace,’” the court added. “It was a determination based on, and supported by, relevant objective medical reports, tests, and statements by medical sources that § 404.1545(a)(3) directs an ALJ to consider.”

The ALJ acknowledged that the 2016 exam reached a different conclusion regarding Bonham’s ability to use his left arm but found the evidence unpersuasive “because of its lack of consistency with other findings in the record,” the court said. “The ALJ’s decision to give more weight to relevant objective evidence in the claimant’s medical records than to a one-time exam by a PA does not create an unresolved issue that requires remanding for the development of additional evidence to resolve the inconsistency — even when the claimant’s attorney invites the ALJ to do so.”

The court affirmed the denial of disability benefits.

Judge Jane Kelly filed a dissenting opinion, writing that she did not believe there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s findings.

Alexander S. Hall of the Parmele Law Firm in Springfield, who represented Bonham, did not respond to a request for comment on the decision.

Neither did the Social Security Administration, which was represented by Baltimore attorney Laura Holland.

The case is Bonham v. Bisignano, No. 24-2999.