Larck v. Barnhart

First Circuit

Larck v. Barnhart

110 F. App'x 146

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedOctober 14, 2004

Docket04-1245

StatusPublished

This text of 110 F. App'x 146 (Larck v. Barnhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Larck v. Barnhart, 110 F. App'x 146 (1st Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Claimant Dannie Larck appeals from a decision of the district court upholding the Commissioner’s denial of disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. After carefully reviewing the briefs and record below, we affirm the Commissioner’s decision, essentially for the reasons set out in the Magistrate Judge’s October 31, 2003, Report and Recommendation. We add only that, contrary to claimant’s contention, neither Dr. Grafs opinion that claimant’s impairment was equivalent to a listed impairment, see 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, nor Dr. Holzaepfel’s finding that claimant could lift no more than ten pounds are entitled to controlling weight. Both of the cited conclusions are plainly inconsistent with or unsupported by contemporaneous findings made by the same and other physicians. Cf. Prince v. Bowen, 894 F.2d 283, 285-86 (8th Cir.1990). The Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

In light of our conclusion, we find it unnecessary to address the Commissioner’s contention that claimant’s amendment of the alleged onset date limited the period under review to a single day. We also decline to address claimant’s arguments concerning the appropriate weight to afford disability determinations of other agencies, as this argument was not presented to the district court.

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

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

PER CURIAM.

Claimant Dannie Larck appeals from a decision of the district court upholding the Commissioner’s denial of disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. After carefully reviewing the briefs and record below, we affirm the Commissioner’s decision, essentially for the reasons set out in the Magistrate Judge’s October 31, 2003, Report and Recommendation. We add only that, contrary to claimant’s contention, neither Dr. Grafs opinion that claimant’s impairment was equivalent to a listed impairment, see 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, nor Dr. Holzaepfel’s finding that claimant could lift no more than ten pounds are entitled to controlling weight. Both of the cited conclusions are plainly inconsistent with or unsupported by contemporaneous findings made by the same and other physicians. Cf. Prince v. Bowen, 894 F.2d 283, 285-86 (8th Cir.1990). The Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

In light of our conclusion, we find it unnecessary to address the Commissioner’s contention that claimant’s amendment of the alleged onset date limited the period under review to a single day. We also decline to address claimant’s arguments concerning the appropriate weight to afford disability determinations of other agencies, as this argument was not presented to the district court.

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 F. App'x 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larck-v-barnhart-ca1-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack