Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

09-2820 Schaaf v. Astrue

By: dmc-admin//April 26, 2010//

09-2820 Schaaf v. Astrue

By: dmc-admin//April 26, 2010//

Listen to this article

Public Health
Disability benefits

Even though a disability claimant lost one arm, it was not error for the ALJ to find that he was not disabled.

"Schaaf seemingly contends that because the ALJ did not point to contradictory evidence (expecting, perhaps, an opinion from a doctor saying that Schaaf could work a full month), Dr. Ingalls's finding must be well-supported. But Schaaf conflates the two areas of inquiry. The ALJ discounted Ingalls's opinion about Schaaf missing work because he found that Ingalls did not explain his opinion and his treatment notes do not clarify the doctor's reasoning. Although Schaaf insists that Ingalls's opinion is supported by substantial evidence in the record, we cannot find any 'medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques' documenting the symptoms that supposedly would prevent Schaaf from working. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). In Schaaf's best attempt to identify objective evidence supporting Ingalls's opinion, he states that his own complaints provide the necessary basis. But subjective complaints are the opposite of objective medical evidence and, while relevant, do not compel the ALJ to accept Ingalls's assessment. See Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363, 370-71 (7th Cir. 2004). Ultimately, though, the ALJ rejected that part of Ingalls's report for the same reasons he rejected Schaaf's testimony about his symptoms: it is inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record."

Affirmed.

09-2820 Schaaf v. Astrue

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Per Curiam.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests