Facts

Plaintiff Anita Virden sought judicial review of the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits, social security income, and disabled widow's benefits.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged to have been disabled and further alleged she suffered from Bipolar Mood Disorder, anxiety, and ongoing symptoms of chronic pain that related to both her elbow injuries. Plaintiff contended the Administrative Law Judge erred when it failed to properly consider the opinion of plaintiff's treating psychiatrist. Plaintiff further contended although her 2016 treatment notes described plaintiff's anxiety was better from the medicated Zoloft treatment she received, such relative statements should have been viewed in context with the record as a whole, in order to determine whether the statements actually meant, for example, the symptoms had worsened. Plaintiff also contended the ALJ erred when it rejected the limitations her doctor opined she had.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied plaintiff's contentions and further contended the ALJ rejected her treating physician's opinion because it was inconsistent with state agency psychologist Phaedra Caruso-Radin, Psy.D. Defendant contended the treating physician's opinion was rejected because he used a checklist style form that included only general conclusions with regard to functional limitations and failed to provide rationale for those conclusions. Defendant also contended the ALJ discounted the physician's opinion because the longitudinal medical record did not support such restrictive measures. Defendant additionally contended that plaintiff submitted minimal treatment records from the treating physician or any other mental health specialist that supported her claims of disability and it was her burden to do so. Defendant contended the ALJ discounted his opinion because plaintiff's condition had improved and she had remained stable since 2016. Lastly, defendant contended the ALJ discounted his opinion because plaintiff has not been psychiatrically hospitalized, and any error sustained from the rejected opinion was harmless.

Result

The court affirmed the ALJ's decision.