Mateer v. Bowen

9 Citing cases

  1. Gaoee T. v. Kijakazi

    22-CV-1992 (JFD) (D. Minn. Sep. 11, 2023)

    One view is that the Commissioner “should always provide all medical records to any physician from whom [she] solicits an opinion regarding any social security case.” Mateer v. Bowen, 702 F.Supp. 220, 222 (S.D. Iowa 1988). On the other hand, “there simply is no per se rule that an examining physician must be provided with, review, and consider the claimant's medical records to render an opinion of any value.”

  2. Jones v. Colvin

    No. C 14-3049-MWB (N.D. Iowa Mar. 7, 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that discounting a third party's statements based on "their inconsistency with the preponderance of the medical evidence . . . is plainly an appropriate basis for doing so" (citing Wright v. Colvin, 789 F.3d 847, 853-54 (8th Cir. 2015))

    I also acknowledge that my colleague, then-Chief Judge Donald E. O'Brien, "indicate[d] to the Secretary that it should always provide all medical records to any physician from whom he solicits an opinion regarding any social security case." Mateer v. Bowen, 702 F. Supp. 220, 222 (S.D. Iowa 1988). Nevertheless, Jones has not shown that applicable statutes, regulations, or decisions of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals impose a mandatory requirement that consulting examiners have access to all of a claimant's records. Nor does the fact that Dr. Latella examined Jones only once necessarily make it inappropriate for the ALJ to rely on his conclusions.

  3. Johnson v. Colvin

    13-CV-3745 (KAM) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2015)   Cited 16 times

    Some district courts outside of this circuit have effectively held that consulting physicians must be provided with all of a claimant's medical records. See Mateer v. Bowen, 702 F. Supp. 220, 222 (S.D. Iowa 1988) ("Furthermore, the court would indicate to the Secretary that it should always provide all medical records to any physician from whom he solicits an opinion regarding any social security case."); see also Pruitt v. Astrue, No. EDCV 08-1107, 2010 WL 1330164, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010). But the language of the relevant regulation does not extend so far. "Necessary background information," 20 C.F.R. § 416.917; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1517, plainly does not specify "all medical records."

  4. Palmer v. Astrue

    Case No. 4:12CV1276 CDP (E.D. Mo. Jul. 22, 2013)

    See L.F., p. 19 (ALJ's findings of limitations imposed by Palmer's depressive disorder and physical impairments); Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 924 (8th Cir. 2011) (ALJ properly considers the combined effects of a claimant's impairments when the ALJ separately discusses each impairment and still concludes that the claimant does not have a combination of impairments that render her disabled). See Parsons v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1984) (psychogenic pain is pain that "cannot be traced to a physical origin"); Mateer v. Bowen, 702 F. Supp. 220 (S.D. Iowa 1988) (psychogenic pain is "mentally generated"); Stedman's Medical Dictionary 1285 (25th ed. 1990) (psychogenic is "of mental origin or causation"). In addition, Palmer contends that her psychogenic pain affected the ALJ's credibility analysis, because the ALJ "failed to examine the possibility that [Palmer's] mental impairment aggravated her perception of pain."

  5. Andreatta v. Astrue

    Civil No. 11-3158-CV-S-NKL-SSA (W.D. Mo. May. 21, 2012)   Cited 8 times
    Remanding case in which ALJ may have relied on PRFCA completed by a single decision-maker and referencing an agency policy that ALJs are not to evaluate in their opinions assessments by single decision-makers

    Andreatta relies on an unreported district-court case that found a doctor's report to be of "little or no value" where the doctor had only reviewed a one-page letter about the claimant's medical history before rendering his opinion. Mateer v. Brown, 702 F. Supp. 220 (S.D. Iowa 1988). Andreatta's only evidence that Dr. Zeimet possessed an incomplete record is the following statement that Dr. Zeimet made in a report: "I do have a few records for review today."

  6. Schmidt v. Astrue

    No. 10-CV-30 63-DEO (N.D. Iowa Jan. 9, 2012)

    In Mateer v. Bowen, this Court recognized that a consultative report made without review of the available medical evidence is of "little or no value." 702 F. Supp 220, 222 (S.D. Iowa 1988). Finally, given that Dr. Wilson indicated there was no information on file relating to Plaintiff's functional capabilities, and Dr. Wilson never examined Plaintiff, his assessment is, at the very least, highly suspect, if not obsolete.

  7. Malloy v. Astrue

    604 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (S.D. Iowa 2009)   Cited 30 times

    As pointed out above, however, Dr. Winchell stated that only two documents had been provided for his review. In Mateer v. Bowen, 702 F. Supp. 220 (S.D. Iowa 1988), the Court wrote: Plaintiff argues that the value of Dr. Taylor's evaluation is seriously eroded by the fact that the only medical history he was provided consisted of a one-page letter, dated April 30, 1986, from Dr. Hermann, plaintiff's treating physician, and Dr. Owens' psychological report (Tr. 387). Plaintiff relies on Gavin v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1195 (8th Cir. 1987), wherein the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to give any weight to a report by a psychiatrist who made a diagnosis without having reviewed the copious medical evidence included in the record.

  8. Nalley v. Apfel

    100 F. Supp. 2d 947 (S.D. Iowa 2000)   Cited 16 times
    Stating "when a claimant is sent to a doctor for a consultative examination, all the available medical records should be reviewed by the examiner."

    The Court would remind the Commissioner that it has been the law in this jurisdiction for some time that when a claimant is sent to a doctor for a consultative examination, all the available medical records should be reviewed by the examiner. Mateer v. Bowen, 702 F. Supp. 220, 222 (S.D.Iowa 1988) ("Furthermore, the court would indicate to the Secretary that it should always provide all medical records to any physician from whom he solicits an opinion regarding any social security case.") This admonition applies with equal force to Disability Determination Services just as it does to the ALJs. In addition to the aforementioned, we also know from the medical evidence that the side effects of Plaintiff's medication cause drowsiness, nausea, and an inability to concentrate.

  9. Hahn v. Apfel

    993 F. Supp. 689 (S.D. Iowa 1998)   Cited 1 times

    In the second place, assuming that Mr. Singley does meet the definition of an acceptable medical source, the only medical record that Mr. Singley was given to review was "a Neurological Consultation Note dated July 12, 1994" and an activities of daily living questionnaire. In Mateer v. Bowen, 702 F. Supp. 220, 222 (S.D.Iowa 1988), Judge O'Brien wrote: "Furthermore, the court would indicate to the Secretary that it should always provide all medical records to any physician from whom he solicits an opinion regarding any social security case." See also, Gavin v. Heckler, 811 F.2d at 1200.