Summary
reversing for legal error under the new regulations and remanding for further consideration of treating physician's opinion where the ALJ adequately addressed the opinion's supportability but did not address whether it was consistent with other evidence of record
Summary of this case from Giffin v. KijakaziOpinion
21-1619
09-20-2021
Shirley Bonnett Plaintiff-Appellant v. Kilolo Kijakazi, [1] Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration Defendant-Appellee
Unpublished
Submitted: September 15, 2021
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado
Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM
Shirley Bonnett appeals the district court's order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits, after her hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). After careful review, see Kraus v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (8th Cir. 2021) (de novo review of district court's judgment; Commissioner's decision will be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence on record as whole and ALJ made no legal error), we conclude that remand is required for further consideration of the opinion of Bonnett's physician, Barry Thompson, M.D. Specifically, while the ALJ adequately evaluated the supportability of Dr. Thompson's opinion, she did not address whether his opinion was consistent with the other evidence of record, as required by the applicable regulation. See Lucus v. Saul, 960 F.3d 1066, 1069-70 (8th Cir. 2020) (remanding where ALJ discredited physician's opinion without discussing factors contemplated in regulation, as failure to comply with opinion-evaluation regulation was legal error); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (in evaluating persuasiveness of medical opinion, ALJ considers supportability and consistency of opinion, and other factors; ALJ must explain how both supportability and consistency factors are considered). While the Commissioner argues that Dr. Thompson's opinion was not consistent with specific other evidence in the record, we will not affirm on this basis, as the ALJ made no such findings. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943) (reviewing court may not uphold agency decision based on reasons not articulated by agency itself in its decision). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court, and we remand with instructions to remand to the Commissioner for further evaluation of Dr. Thompson's opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c.