Mateer v. Bowen

1 Citing case

  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.