United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
Edward J. McManus,
Plaintiff brings this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of his application for social security disability income benefits. Briefing concluded November 25, 2014. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 USC §405(g). Affirmed.
Plaintiff asserts the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to give proper weight to the opinion of plaintiffs non-physician counselor, and failed to develop the record sufficiently concerning plaintiffs mental impairments. Accordingly, he asserts that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
[R]eview of the agency decision is limited to whether there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the [Commissioner's] decision. This requires [the court] to do more than merely parse the record for substantial evidence supporting the [Commissioner's] decision. [The court] also must consider evidence in the record that detracts from the weight of the decision. Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough so that a reasonable mind might find it adequate to support the conclusion.
Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 1992.)
Plaintiff is a 46-year-old man with a high school education and past work history as a countertop fabricator. He filed an application for disability insurance benefits alleging herniated discs, Crohn's disease, migraines and chronic pain. He asserts that the ALJ failed to consider the medical opinions of plaintiffs examining but non-treating physicians Farid Manshadi, M.D., and Jeff Roske, D.O., and of the examining psychologist Ralph Scott, Ph.D.
The court finds that the ALJ properly considered medical reports and opinions from Farid Manshadi, M.D. and Jeff Roske, D.O. (Tr. 29, 764-771). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not address all of Dr. Manshadi's and Dr. Roske's opinions and did not provide good reasons for the weight he assigned the opinions.
Pl.'s Br. at 14-22.
The ALJ weighs a physician's opinion regarding what a plaintiff can do despite his impairments pursuant to the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Relevant factors include
1. whether the expert examined the claimant;
2. whether and to what extent the expert treated the claimant;
3. whether the opinion relies upon probative evidence and provides a persuasive rationale;
4. the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole;
5. the specialization, if any, of the medical source; and
6. any other relevant considerations, including the source's familiarity with the Commissioner's standards and the extent to which the ...