Shontos v. Barnhart
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
328 F.3d 418 (2003)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Shirley Shontos (plaintiff) applied to the Social Security Administration (SSA) (defendant) for disabled widow’s benefits, claiming an inability to work because of multiple impairments, including borderline intellectual functioning, degenerative joint disease, and depression. Shontos sought counseling at Gannon Center from clinical psychologist Julian Burn, who diagnosed Shontos with major depressive disorder and anxiety. Shontos also saw certified counselor Sandy Bookmeyer for weekly counseling sessions for nearly a year and monthly appointments thereafter. Anabel Flaherty, a Gannon Center nurse practitioner, also counseled Shontos, finding that Shontos had anxiety, depression, and severe limitations in residual functional capacity (RFC). Burn and Bookmeyer agreed that Shontos had little to no ability to perform most work-related activities. State-agency psychological consultants Dee Wright and Mark Souza reviewed Shontos’s records, determining that Shontos’s disorders did not meet or equal listed impairments and that Shontos could perform simple work-related tasks. The SSA denied Shontos’s application. Relying on Souza’s and Wright’s opinions, the reviewing administrative-law judge (ALJ) concluded that Shontos had sufficient RFC to perform tasks consistent with certain jobs. The ALJ did not give Bookmeyer’s or Flaherty’s opinions controlling weight because Bookmeyer and Flaherty were not licensed physicians. The ALJ concluded that the combination of Shontos’s conditions did not equal a listed impairment, finding Shontos ineligible for benefits. The appeals council and district court affirmed. Shontos appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lay, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.