Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). Plaintiff argued that the ALJ failed to give adequate weight to her treating physician's opinions regarding her disability. The court concluded that the ALJ had reason to discredit the physician's evaluation given the conclusory nature of his opinion and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Toland v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. The court concluded that the ALJ did not err in concluding that plaintiff did not have a severe impairment that met the criteria of listing 12.04 (Affective Disorders); substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff did not meet all the criteria for the listed impairment; the ALJ's determination of plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC) was supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ did not err in declining to give a nurse practitioner's assessment controlling weight; and the hypothetical posed by the ALJ to the vocational expert was not defective. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of benefits. View "Blackburn v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits (SSI) based on his post traumatic stress disorder, arthritis, headaches, hearing problems, back and knee problems, and acid reflux. The court concluded that the ALJ did not err in denying plaintiff benefits because the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record. View "Smith v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits (SSI) based on her mental impairment. The court concluded that the record was not fully developed as to plaintiff's mental impairments. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further development of the record. The ALJ shall reschedule plaintiff for an IQ test and other testing he deems appropriate before ruling on plaintiff's claim for benefits. View "Channell v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order affirming the ALJ's determination that he was not entitled to disability benefits or supplemental security income. The court concluded that the ALJ's determination that plaintiff retained the residual functioning capacity to return to work as a truck driver was supported by substantial evidence. Because the ALJ did not proceed to step five of the five-step sequential process for evaluating disability claims on remand, vocational expert testimony was not required. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hill v. Colvin" on Justia Law

An ALJ denied plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits, concluding that she was not disabled because there were jobs she could have performed during the relevant period. The Appeals Council then denied review and plaintiff appealed the Commissioner's final decision to the district court. In this appeal, the government challenged the district court's reversal of the Commissioner's decision. The court reversed and affirmed the Commissioner's final decision, concluding that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record. View "Turpin v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's decision upholding the Commissioner's determination that he was not entitled to waiver of recovery of overpaid disability benefits. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's decision where recovery of the overpayment did not defeat the purpose of Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 301 et seq., and where recovery of the overpayment was not against equity or good conscience because plaintiff's mere receipt of disability benefits after notifying the Commissioner of his work activity did not satisfy 20 C.F.R. 404.510a. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rodysill v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the surviving spouse of Charles Kemp, appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. An ALJ found that Kemp was not disabled because he could perform a job a vocational expert (VE) identified in response to a hypothetical the ALJ posed. The court remanded the case for further proceedings because the court was unable to discern from the record whether there was a conflict between the occupational listing at issue and the VE's response to the hypothetical. View "Kemp v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife appealed the denial of his application for Medicaid benefits, arguing that the Department wrongfully denied the application because it had improperly counted against the wife's eligibility an annuity owned by the wife. The district court ruled in favor of plaintiffs and the Department appealed. The court concluded that, because the wife had no right, authority, or power to liquidate the annuity, the annuity benefits were not a resource, but rather was income indicated by the federal statute defining "unearned income." Therefore, the Department applied a more restrictive methodology under state law by classifying the annuity benefits as a resource that counted against plaintiff's eligibility for Medicaid benefits. The court rejected the Department's counter-arguments and the remaining arguments, and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Geston, et al. v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Relators brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(A) and (B), alleging that the Mayo Foundation and others billed Medicare for surgical pathology services it did not provide. The government intervened and the parties settled. Relators then filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting additional claims. On appeal, relators challenged the district court's dismissal of their additional claim that Mayo fraudulently billed for services it did not provide whenever it prepared and read a permanent tissue slide but did not prepare a separate written report of that service. As a preliminary issue, the court concluded that relators satisfied their burden of showing that the public disclosure bar did not deprive the court of jurisdiction over relators' claim. On the merits, the court concluded that nowhere in the Medicare regulations or in the American Medical Association Codebook has the court found a requirement that physicians using the CPT codes for surgical pathology services must prepare the additional written reports that relators claimed Mayo fraudulently failed to provide. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Ketroser, et al. v. Mayo Foundation, et al." on Justia Law