Facts

Regina Banks sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for supplemental security income.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Banks argued the administrative law judge improperly gave res judicata effect to a 2011 decision finding her not disabled, arguing new material evidence showed her mental impairments worsened after that decision. Banks further contended the ALJ improperly rejected that evidence by failing to properly consider her treating physician's opinion and erroneously discounting the credibility of her complaints of medication side effects.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended the ALJ properly considered the treating physician's opinion, discounted new evidence, and gave appropriate res judicata effect to the 2011 decision finding Banks not disabled.

Result

The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision denying benefits. The court found that the ALJ appropriately determined Banks's treating physician's opinion was inconsistent with the other medical evidence presented, and thus properly rejected it. Further, the court determined the ALJ properly rejected Banks's subjective symptom testimony because it was not supported by the objective medical evidence and was vague, inconsistent, and evasive.