MCFARLAND v. SAUL (2019)

[Unpublished]

Crystal McFarland appeals a district court ¹ order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the decision at issue. See Dols v. Saul, 931 F.3d 741, 744 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review). Specifically, we find that the administrative law judge properly gave little weight to the residual functional capacity (RFC) opinion of McFarland’s treating physician, Jonathan Wilford. Among other things, before rendering his opinion, Dr. Wilford had personally examined McFarland only twice when his assessments were either normal or reflected only minor abnormalities, and thus they were inconsistent with his RFC opinion. See Davidson v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 987, 990-91 (8th Cir. 2007) (treating physician’s opinion does not automatically control, and is properly discounted if inconsistent with his prior treatment notes). The other matters McFarland raises provide no basis for reversal. The judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Patricia L. Cohen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

PER CURIAM.