Facts

Reannon Twiddle applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental income after sustaining nerve damage in the left side of her head and both hands. Twiddle's applications were denied by an administrative law judge. Twiddle appealed the decision for reconsideration and summary judgment in her favor.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the nerve damage in her face and hands rendered her disabled. Plaintiff contended that the pain from her injuries resulted in various functional limitations that impeded her ability to work. Her treating neurologist contended that plaintiff had fibromyalgia. In discounting the neurologist's statements, the administrative law judge applied the wrong legal standard in reviewing plaintiff's application. Plaintiff also contended that the administrative law judge incorrectly gave more deference to a state doctor instead of plaintiff's treating physician about plaintiff's mental limitations. Plaintiff believed the evidence and testimony provided was credible and that the administrative law judge erroneously discounted them to plaintiff's detriment. As a result, plaintiff contended that she was entitled to summary judgment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that because plaintiff's neurologist's opinion was conclusory and provided minimal clinical findings, the administrative law judge was not obligated to give deference to the opinion. The administrative law judge credited the assessment of a state agency consultant that contradicted plaintiff's neurologists's conclusions on plaintiff's alleged limitations. Defendant contended that the administrative law judge's opinion was therefore proper because it supported a medical conclusion that was adequately supported by the relevant medical record and personal observations of plaintiff. Defendant made the same assertion in regards to plaintiff's alleged mental limitations and contended that the credit given to the four physicians that opined on plaintiff's condition was appropriate given plaintiff's weak conflicting medical opinions. Defendant also contended that plaintiff lacked credibility because the record contradicted her claimed limitations and revealed that the impairments she claimed by plaintiff did not align with her immediate claims. As a result, defendant contended that it was entitled to summary judgment.

Result

The court determined that the administrative law judge applied the proper standard of evaluation in light of the well founded, contradicting medical record and plaintiff's inconsistent information regarding her symptoms and limitations. As a result, the court determined that summary judgment was appropriate for defendant since plaintiff's applications were properly denied.