ST. LOUIS – A Missouri woman has failed to prove she is owed Social Security benefits after her physician and counselor’s testimony fell short in the opinion of a federal court.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division made the ruling May 23. The order was signed by Judge Audrey G. Fleissig.
The district court backed the Commissioner of Social Security’s ruling that plaintiff Kristi Hanke was indeed not disabled, causing her to be ineligible for disability insurance benefits via Title II of the Social Security Act or supplemental security income (SSI) via Title XVI of the Act.
Hanke’s legal issues began after she filed for benefits in May 2015, stating her disability started in May 2014. She claimed she suffered anxiety, depression and attention deficit disorder. Her application was not accepted in June 2015, and she subsequently asked for a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), that ultimately determined she was not disabled via the Social Security Act.
She later appealed that ruling and stated it was not backed by medical evidence. She asked the district court to reverse the ALJ’s ruling and requested benefits. She also suggested the case could be remanded.
The district court explained why it agreed the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefits. It first stated it understood why the ALJ decided the opinions of the plaintiff’s primary care physician, Dr. Cassandra Edwards, and her licensed professional counselor, Theresa Schroeder, were not heavily considered.
“The ALJ concluded that Dr. Edwards’s opinions were inconsistent with her own treatment records," the opinion stated. It also pointed out Edwards only saw the plaintiff four times since she began treatment with Edwards in January 2016.
While Schroeder concluded the plaintiff was unable to work well with others, make basic decisions, or complete certain tasks because of her alleged disability, the district court determined the ALJ was correct when it reduced the weight of Schroeder’s assessment.
When it came to both Schroeder and Edwards’ statements, the district court concluded the ALJ was correct when it determined their opinions were based on the plaintiff’s statement that she was unable to leave her home and finish simple tasks.
The district court determined while the record could show support or denial for the plaintiff’s application, the ALJ did not abuse its discretion in its decision. It decided the ALJ provided enough evidence for its decision and affirmed the Commissioner’s ruling.