Towns v. Colvin

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION..For the reasons set forth, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. An appropriate Judgment Order is issued herewith. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 5/23/14. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

TYHEIM TOWNS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13 CV 88 DDN

MEMORANDUM
This action is before the court for judicial review of the final decision of the defendant
Commissioner of Social Security denying the application of plaintiff Tyheim Towns for
supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381, et
seq. The parties have consented to the exercise of plenary authority by the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 7.) For the reasons set forth
below, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is affirmed.

I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Tyheim Towns, born May 4, 1995, applied for Title XVI benefits on March 29,
2010. (Tr. 119-25.) He alleged an onset date of disability of January 1, 1999, due to a learning
disability and difficulty focusing. (Tr. 142.) Plaintiff’s application was denied initially on July 7,
2010, and he requested a hearing before an ALJ. (Tr. 66-81.)
On March 27, 2012, following a hearing, the ALJ found plaintiff not disabled. (Tr. 1227.) On April 22, 2013, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review. (Tr. 1-6.)
Thus, the decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of the Commissioner.

II. MEDICAL HISTORY
On March 16, 2009, plaintiff saw Naveed J. Mirza, M.D., his primary physician, at the
Kneibert Clinic. He complained of difficulty concentrating, frequent forgetfulness, and the need
to hear instructions multiple times. Dr. Mirza assessed attention deficit disorder and insomnia
and prescribed Vyvanse and Remeron.1 He told plaintiff to return in one month for further
evaluation. (Tr. 232-34.)
On April 15, 2009, plaintiff returned to Dr. Mirza’s office for a follow-up appointment.
Plaintiff mentioned that he has not been sleeping well and that he continued to have attention and
concentration problems. Dr. Mirza increased the dosage for the Remeron prescription and told
plaintiff to return in a month. (Tr. 229-31.)
On May 13, 2009, plaintiff reported stability and improvement since his last visit. His
mother reported that plaintiff tried hard in school, required occasional redirection, and had no
mood problems. (Tr. 226-28.)
On June 18, 2009, plaintiff returned to Dr. Mirza’s office and reported social limitations,
forgetfulness, and motivational issues. His mother reported that plaintiff did not respond to her
appropriately without continual repetition. Dr. Mirza again asked plaintiff to return in a month
and to continue his regimen of medications. (Tr. 223-25.)
On July 8, 2009, plaintiff reported poor coping skills but denied recent depression. He
had also lost weight, but his mother reported a fair appetite. Dr. Mirza recommended that
plaintiff continue his current regimen of medications and asked that he return in a month. (Tr.
220-22.)
On August 7, 2009, plaintiff complained of lacking motivation and limited coping skills.
He reported social interactions with friends. His mother reported that he recently forgot to tie his
shoe, which surprised her. Dr. Mirza recommended that he continue taking present medications
and return in one month. (Tr. 217-19.)
On August 28, 2009, plaintiff had an Individual Education Plan (IEP) evaluation for his
ninth grade year at Poplar Bluff High School. Plaintiff had received special education services

1

Vyvanse is used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
WebMD,
http://www.webmd.com/drugs (last visited on March 3, 2014). Remeron is an antidepressant. Id.

-2-

since at least kindergarten due to a diagnosis of language impairment. The report stated that
plaintiff met all government eligibility criteria for the educational diagnosis of a language
impairment and noted difficulty with syntax, semantics, and morphology. The effects of his
language deficits included below grade level aptitude in all core areas, limited understanding and
use of vocabulary words, difficulty expressing himself in writing or orally, and difficulty
completing multistep word problems. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children indicated
borderline range of intelligence and resulted in a verbal comprehension score of 65, a perceptual
reasoning score of 98, a working memory score of 116, a processing speed score of 59, and a full
scale IQ score of 79. Regarding adaptive behavior, plaintiff functioned in the average range and
could transition from classes and activities without difficulty.

He could also care for and

communicate his daily living needs. His teachers observed appropriate behavior with his peers
and teachers. They described him as “too playful at times” and noted that he is easily distracted
but also easily redirected. (Tr. 176-89, 195-97.)
On September 23, 2009, plaintiff returned to Dr. Mirza’s office and reported satisfactory
behavior but difficulty concentrating and excessive talking in class. His mother again reported
the need to repeat herself. Dr. Mirza noted that the insomnia condition had improved. Dr. Mirza
recommended that plaintiff continue his current medications and return in one month. (Tr. 21416.)
On October 23, 2009, plaintiff met with Dr. Mirza and reported cognitive limitations and
difficulty processing information. He also reported attentiveness and no behavioral problems
other than excessively talking in class. His mother again reported the need to repeat herself. Dr.
Mirza recommended that plaintiff continue his current medication and return in one month. (Tr.
211-13.)
On December 2, 2009, plaintiff again met with Dr. Mirza and reported satisfactory
concentration and attention span and the ability to follow directions. He reported no behavioral
problems except for an issue with a classmate due to his limited coping skills. His mother again
reported the need to repeat herself. Dr. Mirza recommended that plaintiff continue his current
regimen of medications and return in two months. (Tr. 208-10.)

-3-

On January 28, 2010, plaintiff met with Dr. Mirza and reported occasional difficulty
concentrating and with motivation. He further reported no behavioral issues and satisfactory
sleep and appetite. His mother reported difficulty with performing chores and the need to repeat
herself. Dr. Mirza recommended that he continue his medications for ADD and insomnia and
return in one month. (Tr. 205-07.)
On February 25, 2010, plaintiff’s mother reported that plaintiff talked back and did not
listen to her. She further reported that most of his behavioral issues occurred in the home. He
continued to have limited coping skills and academic difficulties. (Tr. 202-04.)
On March 24, 2010, plaintiff again met with Dr. Mirza and reported difficulty following
directions and occasional distractions. He further reported the increased difficulty of school work
and low grades. Dr. Mirza recommended that he continue the medications for ADD and insomnia
and return in two months. (Tr. 199-201.)
On May 19, 2010, plaintiff again met with Dr. Mirza and reported satisfactory behavior.
He reported the inability to follow directions and the need for repetition of directions. He further
reported defiance, frustration, sadness, and withdrawal but also fair appetite and sleep. Dr. Mirza
considered recurrent major depressive disorder, prescribed Wellbutrin, and continued plaintiff on
his other medications. (Tr. 289-91).
On June 2, 2010, Joan Singer, Ph.D., completed a Childhood Disability Evaluation Form.
Based on plaintiff’s medical records, she found plaintiff’s conditions of ADD, insomnia, and
language impairment to be severe but that they did not meet or medically or functionally equal the
listing requirements. She further found that plaintiff had marked limitations with acquiring and
using information and less than marked limitations with completing tasks and interacting with
others. (Tr. 235-40.)
On July 14, 2010, plaintiff again met with Dr. Mirza and reported difficulty expressing his
feelings, punching a hole in a wall, increased anger, and temper tantrums. Dr. Mirza prescribed
Invega and told plaintiff to return in one month.2 (Tr. 286-88.)

2

Invega is used to treat certain mental/mood disorders. WebMD, http://www.webmd.com/drugs
(last visited on March 3, 2014).

-4-

On August 11, 2010, plaintiff met with Dr. Mirza.

His mother reported continued

behavioral issues, including disobedience, defiance, withdrawal, and argumentativeness. Dr.
Mirza observed depressed and irritable mood, distracted thought, low self-esteem, poor insight,
and fair judgment. He recommended that plaintiff remain on the current regimen of medications
and return in one month for a follow-up. (Tr. 283-85.)
On September 8, 2010, plaintiff again met with Dr. Mirza. Plaintiff reported behavioral
issues at home, including lack of motivation with chores, but no such issues at school. He also
reported daydreaming but that he did not lose interest easily during activities.

Dr. Mirza

recommended that he remain on the current regimen of medications and return for a follow-up in
two months. (Tr. 279-81.)
On November 3, 2010, plaintiff again met with Dr. Mirza at his office. Plaintiff reported
increased aggression, more mood swings, and increased difficulty with emotional control. He
further reported no behavioral issues at school but complained that he found his schoolwork to be
increasingly difficult and time consuming. Dr. Mirza increased the dosage of plaintiff’s Invega
prescription and recommended that he continue his other medications and return for a follow-up
in two months. (Tr. 276-78.)
On December 17, 2010, plaintiff again met with Dr. Mirza at his office. Plaintiff’s mother
stated that he was doing fairly well but that getting plaintiff’s attention required her to repeat
herself. Plaintiff reported difficulty with focus at school as well. He also reported occasional
frustration and anger. Dr. Mirza recommended that plaintiff continue his medications and return
in two months. (Tr. 273-75.)
On February 11, 2011, plaintiff again met with Dr. Mirza at his office. Plaintiff reported
increased activity, lack of motivation, and boredom. He further reported that his failure to listen
caused him trouble and that he had difficulty expressing himself. Dr. Mirza diagnosed plaintiff
with psychotic disorder and recommended that plaintiff continue his medications and return in
two months. (Tr. 270-72.)
On March 31, 2011, plaintiff received an IEP evaluation.

The evaluation indicated

language impairment and the need for repeated or rephrased instructions but no functional
concerns in the areas of socialization, communication, daily living or motor skills. His strengths

-5-

included good attendance, getting along with his peers, treating his teachers politely, the ability to
be redirected with ease, timely completion of assignments, and appropriate participation in class
discussion. The report recommended that plaintiff continue in the special needs program and
stated that he required oral instructions and prompts and extended time for examinations.
Plaintiff indicated that he would pursue post-secondary education after high school graduation.
(Tr. 293-312.)
On April 8, 2011, plaintiff again met with Dr. Mirza at his office. He reported difficulty
following directions but no significant behavioral problems. Dr. Mirza described plaintiff as less
expressive and distracted. Plaintiff reported fair grades but receiving increased assistance with
reading and math schoolwork. Dr. Mirza recommended that plaintiff continue on his medications
and return in two months. (Tr. 267-69.)
On April 16, 2011, an electrocardiogram revealed sinus bradycardia within normal limits.
(Tr. 262-63.)
On May 9, 2011, Dr. Mirza filled out a Child Disability Evaluation Form. He indicated
that plaintiff had marked limitations with acquiring and using information, attending and
completing tasks, self-care, and health. He noted plaintiff’s poor handling of social situations,
inability to sustain attention and concentration with tasks requiring mental effort, and ongoing
psychiatric issues. (Tr. 259-60.)
On June 3, 2011, plaintiff again met with Dr. Mirza. Plaintiff had been promoted to the
eleventh grade. He reported that he continued to be withdrawn and struggle with directions but
was generally able to focus. Dr. Mirza recommended that plaintiff continue his medications and
return in two months. (Tr. 333-35.)
On July 29, 2011, plaintiff again met with Dr. Mirza. Plaintiff reported no significant
behavior issues or depression and that he had been sleeping well and had a fair energy level. He
further reported that he continued to struggle with motivation, and Dr. Mirza found him easily
distracted. Dr. Mirza recommended that plaintiff continue his medications and return in two
months. (Tr. 330-32.)

-6-

On September 23, 2011, plaintiff reported satisfactory behavior but difficulty performing
his chores and maintaining focus. Dr. Mirza recommended that plaintiff continue his medications
and return in two months. (Tr. 327-29.)
On November 18, 2011, plaintiff again met with Dr. Mirza. Plaintiff reported difficulty
expressing himself, the need for redirection, frustration, and poor motivation, but that he had
passing grades. Dr. Mirza recommended that plaintiff continue his medications and return in two
months. (Tr. 317-19.)
On January 13, 2012, plaintiff, now at age 16, again met with Dr. Mirza. Plaintiff
reported emotional outbursts and occasionally struggling with listening to authority figures, but
that he had the ability to concentrate.

Dr. Mirza recommended that plaintiff continue his

medications and return in two months. (Tr. 314-16.)

Testimony at the Hearing
A hearing was conducted before an ALJ on March 13, 2012. (Tr. 31-44.) Plaintiff
testified to the following. He is sixteen years old and measures six feet, one inch, and 150
pounds. He is in eleventh grade, and his special education classes include math, social studies,
biology, and English. His grades consist of Cs and Ds, and he plays on the high school basketball
team.

Occasionally, low grades prevented him from basketball participation.

He takes

medications but cannot list them. His medication does not work, and he occasionally forgets to
take them. In order to avoid trouble, he rarely talks to other students. During the then current
school year, he received a morning detention for talking back to his English teacher. His school
does not assign him much homework, and he does not always complete his assignments. (Tr. 3638)
Carolyn Towns, plaintiff’s mother, was also present at the hearing and testified as follows.
Plaintiff has lived with her his entire life, and they live alone. She consistently has to tell plaintiff
to empty the trash, shower, and mow multiple times. About four times per day, he becomes angry
due to her repetition, and he has punched a hole in the kitchen wall twice. (Tr. 39-40.)
His teachers plan to keep him in the special education program. They did not mention any
behavioral issues but discussed his schoolwork, including his difficulty reading. He gets along

-7-

well with both his teacher and his basketball coach. He has his driver’s permit but required
assistance with studying from an independent living center and took the exam with oral
instructions and prompts. After school, he comes home and often watches television or plays
with his nephew or other relatives. He plays basketball outside the house. Sometimes he goes out
with friends but only with her permission. Occasionally, he spends the night with other family
members. He gets along with his peers, although they occasionally anger him. Plaintiff’s doctor
informed her of his plan to continue plaintiff’s medication and told plaintiff to obey her. Plaintiff
requires her direction to attend to his personal needs. (Tr. 41-43.)

III. DECISION OF THE ALJ
On March 27, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision that plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. 12-30.)
At Step One of the prescribed regulatory decision-making scheme, the ALJ found that plaintiff
has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the application date, March 29, 2010. At Step
Two the ALJ found that the plaintiff’s severe impairments were borderline intellectual
functioning, language impairment, attention deficit disorder, insomnia, major depressive disorder,
and psychotic disorder. (Tr. 18.)
At Step Three, the ALJ found that plaintiff had no impairment or combination of
impairments that met or was the medical equivalent in severity to the listings, nor did the plaintiff
have an impairment or combination of impairments that was the functional equivalent of the
severity of the listings. (Tr. 27.)

IV. GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The court’s role on judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is to determine
whether the Commissioner’s findings comply with the relevant legal requirements and are
supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Pate-Fires v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 935,
942 (8th Cir. 2009). “Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but is enough that a
reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner’s conclusion.” Id. In
determining whether the evidence is substantial, the court considers evidence that both supports
and detracts from the Commissioner's decision. Id. As long as substantial evidence supports the

-8-

decision, the court may not reverse it merely because substantial evidence exists in the record that
would support a contrary outcome or because the court would have decided the case differently.
See Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019, 1022 (8th Cir. 2002).
The Act provides in relevant part:
An individual under the age of 18 shall be considered disabled for the purposes of
this subchapter if that individual has a medically determinable physical or mental
impairment, which results in marked and severe functional limitations, and which
can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for
a continuous period of not less than 12 months.
42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(C)(i) (1996).
To be entitled to disability benefits, a child claimant must engage in a three-step process.
20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a). At Step One, a child claimant must show that he never engaged in
substantial gainful activity. Id. § 416.924(b). At Step Two, a child claimant must show that his
physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments is severe. Id. § 416.924(c). At
Step Three, a child claimant must show that his impairments, singly or in combination, met or
were medically or functionally equivalent to a listed impairment. Id. § 416.924(d).

V. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by (1) failing to find that plaintiff satisfied the
requirements of Listing 112.05D, (2) finding that plaintiff’s impairments did not functionally
equal a listing, and (3) failing to give proper weight to the opinion of his treating physician, Dr.
Mirza.

A. Listing 112.05
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing to find that he met the requirements of
Listing 112.05, which pertains to Mental Retardation. 20 C.F.R. § 404, App. 1. Specifically, the
listing defines a mental impairment consisting of “significantly sub average general intellectual
functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning.” Id. The listing sets forth alternative sets of
criteria captioned A, B, C, D, E, or F, which a claimant must satisfy to qualify. Id. Plaintiff
specifically challenges the ALJ’s determination regarding the D criteria. To satisfy D, plaintiff

-9-

must show: (1) a significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning with deficits in
adaptive functioning; (2) a valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70; and (3) a
physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant limitation of function.
Id. Plaintiff asserts that his valid verbal IQ of 65 and his diagnoses for language impairment,
ADD, insomnia, major depressive disorder and psychotic disorder satisfy the requirements of
Listing 112.05D.
However, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the ALJ erred in establishing plaintiff had
deficits in adaptive functioning necessary to meet Listing 112.05D
The term “adaptive functioning” refers to the individual's progress in acquiring
mental, academic, social and personal skills as compared with other unimpaired
individuals of his/her same age. Indicators of adaptive behavior include childhood
developmental milestones (e.g., when did the individual first crawl, walk, tie
shoes, feed/dress self, etc.), as well as educational and social achievements.
Social Security Administration, Program Operation Manual System, DI 24505.015, available at
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0424515056.
Plaintiff received an IEP report in May 2009 that he, at age 14, “appears to be functioning
in the average range for adaptive behavior as compared to his peers. He transitions from class to
class and from activity to activity without difficulty. He can take care of his daily living needs
and can communicate his need effectively.” (Tr. 186.) Both IEPs, dated August 2009 and March
2011, noted that there were no concerns for adaptive behavior. (Tr. 196, 295.) Plaintiff’s mother
testified that plaintiff received his driving permit. (Tr. 42.) Therefore, substantial evidence
supports finding that plaintiff did not suffer adaptive functioning deficits.
Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred by not discussing Listing 112.05D before
determining that he did not satisfy any listing requirement and by not discussing whether plaintiff
suffered deficits in adaptive functioning. However, the ALJ does not err when he “fails to explain
why an impairment does not equal one of the listed impairments as long as the overall conclusion
is supported by the record.” Boettcher v. Astrue, 652 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2011). As set forth
above, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff did not meet Listing
112.05D, and therefore, the ALJ did not err.

- 10 -

B. Functional equivalency
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to consider the medical records of Dr. Mirza and, in
particular, not finding that he had a marked limitation in attending and completing tasks in
addition to acquiring and using information. If the ALJ determines that a child claimant’s
impairments do not satisfy the listings, the ALJ must consider whether the impairments are the
functional equivalent. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a). A child's impairment is functionally equal to a
listed impairment if there is an extreme limitation in one of six specific functional domains, or a
marked limitation in at least two domains. Id. Domain analysis requires consideration of the
child's age-appropriate functioning in relation to acquiring and using information, attending and
completing tasks, interacting and relating with others, moving around and manipulating objects,
caring for oneself, and health and physical well-being. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a)(1)(i)-(vi).
The attending and completing tasks inquiry focuses on the ability of the child to focus and
maintain attention, the ability to begin, perform, and finish activities, the pace of performance,
and the ability to switch between activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(h). Other considerations
include the ability to focus in the face of distraction, the ability to avoid impulsive thinking and
acting, and the ability to organize, plan, prioritize tasks, and manage time.

Title XVI:

Determining Childhood Disability-the Functional Equivalence Domain of “Attending &
Completing Tasks,” SSR 09-4P (S.S.A Feb. 18, 2009).
The ALJ determined that plaintiff had some but less than marked limitation in attending
and completing tasks. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ emphasized that teachers reported that
plaintiff completed assigned tasks, participated in class discussions, achieved passing grades, and
was scheduled to graduate on time. (Tr. 24.) His mother testified that he played basketball for his
high school, watched television, played video games, and spent time with family and friends. (Tr.
36-38.)

In addition, Dr. Singer, the state agency consultant reviewed plaintiff’s file and

concluded that plaintiff had a less than marked limitation in attending and completing tasks,
specifically noting that while plaintiff suffers from ADD and insomnia, his symptoms are stable
on medication. (Tr. 237.) Moreover, Dr. Mirza’s most recent notes indicate that although he
struggled with completing chores at home, he achieved passing grades and retained the ability to
concentrate and focus. (Tr. 314-35.)

- 11 -

Considering the record as a whole, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination
that plaintiff suffered some limitation in attending and completing tasks but that such limitation
did not rise to the level of marked. In sum, although the record may have supported a contrary
conclusion, the ALJ did not err in his determination.

C. Dr. Mirza’s Opinion
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not properly consider the opinion of the treating
physician, Dr. Mirza, when the ALJ gave Dr. Mirza’s opinion no significant weight without
considering whether the opinion was well supported by the record. In addition, plaintiff argues
that the ALJ failed to provide any inconsistencies between Dr. Mirza’s opinion and the record.
Plaintiff specifically argues that the ALJ erred in affording no significant weight to the
opinion of Dr. Mirza, plaintiff’s treating physician, regarding plaintiff’s status of attending and
completing tasks, personal care, and health and physical well-being. While a treating physician's
opinion is generally entitled to substantial weight, such an opinion does not automatically control
because the ALJ must evaluate the record as a whole. Wilson v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 539, 542 (8th
Cir. 1999).

In his decision, the ALJ reasoned that although normally treating physicians’

opinions are entitled to great weight, the opinion of Dr. Mirza was simply not supported by
evidence as a whole, including Dr. Mirza’s own treatment notes as well as school records and
claimant’s statements. (Tr. 21-22.)
Although the ALJ did not discuss these inconsistencies directly, “an ALJ's failure to cite
specific evidence does not indicate that it was not considered.” Craig v. Apfel, 212 F.3d 433, 436
(8th Cir. 2000). Here, the record supports the finding that plaintiff’s limitations with attending
and completing tasks were less than marked.

Dr. Mirza on numerous occasions described

plaintiff’s condition as “mild” regarding hyperactivity, anxiety, thought disruption, impulsiveness,
depressed mood, and sleep problems.

(Tr. 190-92, 199-234, 241-57, 261-91, 313-35.)

Additionally, in June 2011, Dr. Mirza stated that plaintiff had been able to focus most of the time.
(Tr. 333.) Moreover, the ALJ found no evidence that plaintiff suffered limitations with personal
care. Further, plaintiff’s mother indicated that he had no problems in this area. (Tr. 135.)

- 12 -

The ALJ also found that plaintiff had no limitations in the area of health and physical
well-being due to the lack of evidence in the record. (Tr. 27.) For the evaluation of health and
physical well-being, the ALJ considers “the cumulative physical effects of physical or mental
impairments and their associated treatments or therapies” that were not considered in the
evaluation of the child’s ability to move and manipulate objects. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(l). Dr.
Mirza’s records indicate no complaints or diagnoses regarding the effects of plaintiff’s
impairments on his physical ability. Moreover, plaintiff alleged no physical impairments, and
plaintiff’s mother indicated no significant limitations but that he could walk, run, dance, ride a
bike, throw a ball, jump rope, play sports, and play video games. (Tr. 133.) Moreover, plaintiff
participated as a member of his high school’s basketball team. (Tr. 37.)
“It is the ALJ's function to resolve conflicts among the opinions of various treating and
examining physicians. The ALJ may reject the conclusions of any medical expert, whether hired
by the claimant or the government, if they are inconsistent with the record as a whole.” Pearsall
v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1219 (8th Cir. 2001). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
decision to afford Dr. Mirza’s opinion minimal weight. Accordingly, plaintiff’s argument is
without merit, and the ALJ did not err by giving Dr. Mirza’s opinion only minimal weight.

VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is
affirmed. An appropriate Judgment Order is issued herewith.
/S/ David D. Noce
o
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Signed on May 23, 2014.

- 13 -