John v. Goetz v. Jo Anne Barnhart

Eighth Circuit

John v. Goetz v. Jo Anne Barnhart

182 F. App'x 625

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 2, 2006

Docket05-2267

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 182 F. App'x 625 (John v. Goetz v. Jo Anne Barnhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John v. Goetz v. Jo Anne Barnhart, 182 F. App'x 625 (8th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John V. Goetz appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. As relevant to the instant appeal, Goetz alleged disability since June 2001 from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that (1) Goetz’s OCD and other medical problems were severe but not of listing-level severity; (2) his subjective complaints were not fully credible; and (3) his residual functional capacity (RFC) precluded his past relevant work, but he could perform jobs a vocational expert identified in response to a hypothetical. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed.

Goetz’s only argument on appeal is that the ALJ erred by not adopting the mental RFC opinion of treating psychiatrist Elsa Remer, who rated many of Goetz’s work-related abilities as poor or markedly limited. We find that the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Remer’s opinion. See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir.2005) (treating physician’s opinion does not automatically control because record must be evaluated as whole); Ellis v. Barnhart, *626 392 F.3d 988, 994 (8th Cir.2005) (whüe medical source opinions are considered in assessing RFC, final RFC determination is left to ALJ). We agree with the ALJ that there were inconsistencies between Dr. Remer’s RFC assessment and her treatment notes. Further, it appears that Goetz’s decision to stop taking his prescribed medications at one point caused him to deteriorate and require hospitalization, see Brown v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 535, 540-41 (8th Cir.2004) (ALJ was free not to give controlling weight to treating physician’s opinion because claimant was non-compliant with prescribed treatment; if impairment can be controlled by medication, it cannot be viewed as disabling); and as the district court noted, Dr. Remer did not discourage Goetz from seeking work, and she drafted her RFC opinion eight months after the period to which it related.

Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny Goetz’s motion to supplement the record with evidence that is unrelated to the period at issue here.

1

. The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

John V. Goetz appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. As relevant to the instant appeal, Goetz alleged disability since June 2001 from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that (1) Goetz’s OCD and other medical problems were severe but not of listing-level severity; (2) his subjective complaints were not fully credible; and (3) his residual functional capacity (RFC) precluded his past relevant work, but he could perform jobs a vocational expert identified in response to a hypothetical. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed.

Goetz’s only argument on appeal is that the ALJ erred by not adopting the mental RFC opinion of treating psychiatrist Elsa Remer, who rated many of Goetz’s work-related abilities as poor or markedly limited. We find that the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Remer’s opinion. See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir.2005) (treating physician’s opinion does not automatically control because record must be evaluated as whole); Ellis v. Barnhart, *626 392 F.3d 988, 994 (8th Cir.2005) (whüe medical source opinions are considered in assessing RFC, final RFC determination is left to ALJ). We agree with the ALJ that there were inconsistencies between Dr. Remer’s RFC assessment and her treatment notes. Further, it appears that Goetz’s decision to stop taking his prescribed medications at one point caused him to deteriorate and require hospitalization, see Brown v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 535, 540-41 (8th Cir.2004) (ALJ was free not to give controlling weight to treating physician’s opinion because claimant was non-compliant with prescribed treatment; if impairment can be controlled by medication, it cannot be viewed as disabling); and as the district court noted, Dr. Remer did not discourage Goetz from seeking work, and she drafted her RFC opinion eight months after the period to which it related.

Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny Goetz’s motion to supplement the record with evidence that is unrelated to the period at issue here.

1

. The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 F. App'x 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-v-goetz-v-jo-anne-barnhart-ca8-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack