Mateer v. Bowen

2 Citing cases

  1. 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.

  2. 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.