To the extent Plaintiff is arguing the ALJ should have sought another State Agent's opinion to explicitly formulate his mental RFC, the Court finds the ALJ was not required to obtain additional records or a consultative examination. See, e.g., Stallings v. Colvin, 2015 WL 1781407, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2015) (citing Tellez v. Barnhart, 403 F.3d 953, 956-57 (8th Cir. 2005)) (“Eighth Circuit case law reveals that an ALJ can appropriately determine a claimant's RFC without a specific medical opinion so long as there is sufficient medical evidence in the record.”).
Thus, the Court cannot agree with Plaintiff that the ALJ committed reversible error in finding her mental impairments non-severe based on the available medical evidence in the record, or that the ALJ was required to obtain an additional opinion. See Vanlue v. Astrue, 2012 WL 4464797, at *12 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 26, 2012) (affirming ALJ's finding that depression was not a severe impairment where the claimant had sought only minimal and conservative treatment and the claimant never required more aggressive forms of mental health treatment than medication); Stallings v. Colvin, 2015 WL 1781407, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2015) (citing Tellez v. Barnhart, 403 F.3d 953, 956-57 (8th Cir. 2005)) (“Eighth Circuit case law reveals that an ALJ can appropriately determine a claimant's RFC without a specific medical opinion so long as there is sufficient medical evidence in the record.”). B. The ALJ's Evaluation of Plaintiff's Physical Impairments
The Eighth Circuit has held that an ALJ's RFC assessment was supported by substantial evidence even when there was no supporting medical opinion. See Stallings v. Colvin, No. 6:14-CV-03273-MDH, 2015 WL 1781407, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2015) (“Eighth Circuit case law reveals that an ALJ can appropriately determine a claimant's RFC without a specific medical opinion so long as there is sufficient medical evidence in the record.”). The burden of persuasion to prove disability and demonstrate RFC remains on the claimant.
The Eighth Circuit has held that an ALJ's RFC assessment was supported by substantial evidence even when there was no supporting medical opinion. See Stallings v. Colvin, No. 6:14-CV-03273-MDH, 2015 WL 1781407, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2015) (“Eighth Circuit case law reveals that an ALJ can appropriately determine a claimant's RFC without a specific medical opinion so long as there is sufficient medical evidence in the record.”). The burden of persuasion to prove disability and demonstrate RFC remains on the claimant.
The Court finds the ALJ was not required to seek additional records from Dr. Mattingly or obtain a consultative examination. See, e.g., Stallings v. Colvin, No. 6:14-CV-03273-MDH, 2015 WL 1781407, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2015) (citing Tellez v. Barnhart, 403 F.3d 953, 956-57 (8th Cir. 2005)) (“Eighth Circuit case law reveals that an ALJ can appropriately determine a claimant's RFC without a specific medical opinion so long as there is sufficient medical evidence in the record.”). The lack of a medical opinion evaluating the severity and limiting effects of Plaintiff's mental impairments does not, in this case, necessitate a finding that the ALJ failed to develop the record.
The Eighth Circuit has held that an ALJ's RFC assessment was supported by substantial evidence even when there was no supporting medical opinion. See Stallings v. Colvin, No. 6:14-CV-03273-MDH, 2015 WL 1781407, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2015) (“Eighth Circuit case law reveals that an ALJ can appropriately determine a claimant's RFC without a specific medical opinion so long as there is sufficient medical evidence in the record.”). The burden of persuasion to prove disability and demonstrate RFC remains on the claimant.
In fact, an ALJ's RFC assessment can be supported by substantial evidence even when there is no supporting medical opinion. See Stallings v. Colvin, No. 6:14-CV-03273-MDH, 2015 WL 1781407, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2015) ("Eighth Circuit case law reveals that an ALJ can appropriately determine a claimant's RFC without a specific medical opinion so long as there is sufficient medical evidence in the record."). In this case there is some medical evidence in the record supporting the ALJ's findings, namely, the report of state agency consultant Dr. Paul Midden, Ph.D., who opined that Plaintiff had moderate mental limitations and retained the capacity to engage in at least simple work with limited social interaction.
The Court finds under the circumstances of this case that the ALJ was not required to seek a medical opinion from a treating physician or consultative examiner, as Overy argues. See, e.g., Stallings v. Colvin, No. 6:14-CV-03273-MDH, 2015 WL 1781407, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2015) (citing Tellez v. Barnhart, 403 F.3d 953, 956-57 (8th Cir. 2005)) ("Eighth Circuit case law reveals that an ALJ can appropriately determine a claimant's RFC without a specific medical opinion so long as there is sufficient medical evidence in the record."). The lack of a medical opinion evaluating the severity and limiting effects of Overy's physical impairments does not in this case necessitate a finding that the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record.
However, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's RFC determination because there is sufficient medical evidence in the record to allow the ALJ to determine Plaintiff's physical functional capabilities, even without a specific medical opinion.See Stallings v. Colvin, 2015 WL 1781407, at *3 (W.D. Mo. April 20, 2015) ("an ALJ can appropriately determine a claimant's RFC without a specific medical opinion so long as there is sufficient medical evidence in the record"). For instance, there is no diagnosis of arthritis or other degenerative ailment in Plaintiff's ankles, and Plaintiff has not complained of ankle pain to providers.
The Court further finds under the circumstances of this case that the ALJ was not required to seek a medical opinion from a treating physician or consultative examiner, as Plaintiff argues (Doc. 17 at 10). See, e.g., Stallings v. Colvin, No. 6:14-CV-03273-MDH, 2015 WL 1781407, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2015) (citing Tellez, 403 F.3d at 956-57) ("Eighth Circuit case law reveals that an ALJ can appropriately determine a claimant's RFC without a specific medical opinion so long as there is sufficient medical evidence in the record."). The lack of a medical opinion evaluating the severity and limiting effects of Plaintiff's impairments does not in this case necessitate a finding that the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record.