Catherine Bradford v. Martin O’Malley, Commissioner, Social Security Administration,1

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2629
___________________________
Catherine Bradford,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,
v.
Martin O’Malley, Commissioner, Social Security Administration,1
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Northern
____________
Submitted: February 14, 2024
Filed: June 25, 2024
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON,2 and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
1Commissioner O’Malley is substituted for his predecessor under Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
2Judge Colloton became chief judge of the circuit on March 11, 2024. See 28
U.S.C. § 45(a)(1).

-- 1 of 8 --

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.
Catherine Bradford appeals a judgment of the district court3 upholding the
denial of her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income. Because we agree that the administrative law judge
permissibly weighed the evidence and committed no legal error, we affirm.
I.
Bradford submitted an application in August 2013 for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income. She ultimately claimed that she became
unable to work on April 24, 2015. To be eligible for disability insurance benefits, a
claimant must have been disabled before the date when her insured status expired.
Ponder v. Colvin, 770 F.3d 1190, 1191 (8th Cir. 2014). Bradford’s disability
insurance coverage expired on September 30, 2018. To receive disability insurance
benefits, therefore, Bradford must establish that her period of disability began
between April 24, 2015, and September 30, 2018.
In a separate proceeding, the Commissioner determined that Bradford was
disabled and granted her prospective supplemental security income as of April 9,
2020. But Bradford also seeks supplemental security income payments for the period
between April 24, 2015, and April 8, 2020. To receive those additional benefits,
Bradford must establish that her period of disability began during the cited period.
From 2014 until 2018, Bradford regularly sought treatment for numerous
ailments from Connie Ash, a nurse practitioner. In June 2014 and November 2016,
3The Honorable Patricia S. Harris, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
-2-

-- 2 of 8 --

Nurse Ash opined that Bradford could stand or walk for no more than three hours per
day. Between July 2016 and March 2020, however, three state-agency physicians
reviewed Bradford’s medical records and concluded that she was capable of walking
or standing for six hours. In March 2020, Dr. Donita Keown—a family medicine
practitioner—examined Bradford, ordered and reviewed objective imaging tests, and
opined that Bradford could walk or stand for four to six hours per day.
Applying steps one and two of the five-step evaluation process set forth in 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4) and 416.920(a)(4), an administrative law judge determined
that Bradford had not performed substantial gainful activity since the date of her
alleged disability and that she was severely impaired by multiple ailments: lumbar
degenerative disc disease, bilateral knee osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, diabetes mellitus, obesity, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, anxiety
disorder, osteoarthritis of the left foot, hypertension, and sleep apnea. But the ALJ
found that none of these impairments, either individually or in combination, met or
medically equaled the severity of any impairment listed in the relevant regulation.
See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The ALJ thus could not find
Bradford disabled at step three. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii).
The ALJ then assessed Bradford’s residual functional capacity before April 9,
2020, and concluded that she was capable of performing light work, subject to certain
limitations. The ALJ determined that Bradford’s limitations did not preclude her
from performing her past work as a housekeeper, laundry aide, or factory cleaner. At
step four of the evaluation process, the ALJ therefore concluded that Bradford was
not disabled from April 24, 2015, to April 8, 2020. In making this determination, the
ALJ reviewed Bradford’s medical records and weighed the available medical
opinions. The ALJ gave Nurse Ash’s opinion little weight and gave great weight to
the opinions of the state-agency physicians and Dr. Keown.
-3-

-- 3 of 8 --

The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court granted judgment for
the Commissioner. We review the district court’s decision de novo and will affirm
the denial of benefits if the agency’s decision is not based on any legal error and is
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Sloan v. Saul, 933 F.3d
946, 949 (8th Cir. 2019). “Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but
enough that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the
Commissioner’s conclusion.” Id.
II.
A.
Bradford first argues that the administrative law judge committed legal error
by disregarding a prior remand order of the district court. Bradford challenges the
ALJ’s decision to give Nurse Ash’s opinion little weight when determining
Bradford’s residual functional capacity. As a nurse practitioner, Nurse Ash was not
“an acceptable medical source” at the time this claim was filed, so her opinion was
not entitled to the special deference or weight given to an acceptable, treating source.
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(a)(7), 404.1527(f)(1)-(2), 416.902(a)(7),
416.927(f)(1)-(2). Bradford nonetheless maintains that the ALJ was required by the
law of the case to give Nurse Ash’s opinion greater, if not controlling, weight.
“The law of the case doctrine prevents the relitigation of a settled issue in a
case and requires courts to adhere to decisions made in earlier proceedings . . . .”
Brachtel v. Apfel, 132 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation omitted). The
district court previously had reversed a denial of benefits and remanded the case to
the agency for further proceedings. The court’s remand order stated that if the
original ALJ had given Nurse Ash’s opinion proper weight, the ALJ would have
concluded that Bradford was disabled. Bradford v. Saul, No. 3:19CV00183, 2020
WL 4339909, at *4 (E.D. Ark. July 28, 2020). The district court then ordered the
-4-

-- 4 of 8 --

ALJ to “update the medical record,” “consider ordering a consultive examination . . .
with a consulting orthopedist,” and “then reconsider all of the medical opinions in
arriving at Bradford’s [residual functional capacity].” Id.
The district court’s statement about Nurse Ash’s opinion was not a definitive
conclusion on disability that constituted law of the case. The court directed the
agency to reconsider all of the relevant medical opinions after updating the record.
See Brachtel, 132 F.3d at 420; cf. Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 994,
1005 (8th Cir. 2010) (recognizing the limiting effect of substantially new evidence
on prior findings). As the district court stated in its most recent order, the court’s
earlier statement was an observation about the record as it then existed, not an order
regarding the specific weight to be given to Nurse Ash’s opinion. We defer to the
district court’s construction of its own prior order. See Brachtel, 132 F.3d at 420.
If the district court had concluded that Nurse Ash’s opinion was outcome
determinative, then “it would have reversed the ALJ’s decision and mandated
payment of benefits—not remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings.” Id. But the
district court remanded for further proceedings, and the ALJ properly reconsidered
Nurse Ash’s opinion after updating the record and reconsidering the other relevant
medical opinions. Two of these opinions were rendered after the ALJ’s previous
order and further supported the denial of benefits. We thus conclude that the ALJ’s
weighing of Nurse Ash’s opinion did not conflict with the law of the case or
constitute legal error.
B.
Bradford next disputes the ALJ’s conclusion that she could perform light work.
“‘Light work’ requires that a claimant be capable of standing or walking for a total
of six hours out of an eight-hour work day.” Frankl v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 935, 937 (8th
Cir. 1995). We conclude that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial
-5-

-- 5 of 8 --

evidence on the record as a whole. The ALJ permissibly concluded that Bradford had
the residual functional capacity to perform light work during the relevant period.
When assessing the claimant’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ must
weigh the various medical opinions in the record and resolve any conflicts among
them. Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842, 848-49 (8th Cir. 2007). The ALJ performed
an independent review of the medical record. The judge assessed the available
medical opinions under the relevant factors, including consistency with the record as
a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). The ALJ ultimately gave
the greatest weight to the opinions of physicians and accorded little weight to Nurse
Ash’s opinions.
The ALJ did not give controlling weight to any single medical opinion
regarding Bradford’s ability to walk or stand. Rather, the views of Dr. Keown and
the state-agency physicians, taken together, support the ALJ’s decision. Dr. Keown
concluded after examining Bradford that she could walk or stand for “four to six
hours.” Three state-agency physicians opined based on medical records that Bradford
was capable of walking or standing for about six hours. Dr. Keown’s opinion
referred to a range of hours and was therefore ambiguous in light of the more specific
opinions of the other physicians. It was reasonable, however, for the ALJ to adopt
the upper limit of six hours where Dr. Keown’s view allowed for that duration and
the agency physicians supported Bradford’s ability to walk or stand for six hours.
Dr. Keown’s examination of March 5, 2020, was the most recent in-person
assessment of Bradford at the time of the ALJ’s decision. Dr. Keown discussed with
Bradford her medical conditions, assessed new x-rays of Bradford’s legs and back,
and performed a physical examination. The ALJ may credit a consultant’s opinion
where it is supported by the medical record, and there is no contrary opinion worthy
of deference from an acceptable, treating source. See Chesser v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d
1161, 1164-66 (8th Cir. 2017); Cantrell v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 1104, 1107 (8th Cir.
-6-

-- 6 of 8 --

2000). And the ALJ properly considered the opinions of the three non-examining
agency physicians in conjunction with the views of an examining physician like Dr.
Keown. See Harvey v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2004).
Although Dr. Keown’s examination occurred eighteen months after Bradford’s
disability insurance expired, the doctor’s resulting opinion remains persuasive
evidence of Bradford’s earlier condition. See Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902, 907
(8th Cir. 2006). There is no evidence that Bradford’s ailments were the type that
would have improved over time. Rather, based on Bradford’s medical records, the
ALJ permissibly concluded that her ailments were “generally worsening or
degenerative.” If Bradford’s conditions were progressively worsening but had not
yet rendered her disabled by March 5, 2020, then it is unlikely that she was disabled
at any earlier time. Cf. Young v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Where
a claimant’s condition is progressively deteriorating, the most recent medical report
is the most probative.”).
Bradford contends that the ALJ should not have accorded great weight to Dr.
Keown’s opinion because the doctor was not given access to Bradford’s voluminous
medical record. The regulations require that a consultative examiner should have
“necessary background information” about a claimant’s condition. See 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1517; 416.917. Dr. Keown, however, was aware that Bradford suffered from
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and
joint pain. She also considered objective medical information in the form of x-rays.
Bradford has not shown that Dr. Keown’s access to other medical records was
“necessary” in the sense that they would have materially influenced a functional
assessment of Bradford’s physical capacity at the time of the examination. See
Reeves v. Soc. Sec. Comm’r, 794 F. App’x 851, 857 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).
We will not disturb the ALJ’s determination unless it falls outside of the
available “zone of choice.” Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 936 (8th Cir. 2006).
-7-

-- 7 of 8 --

The ALJ was presented with several medical opinions that collectively supported the
view that Bradford could walk or stand for six hours. The ALJ reasonably concluded
that Nurse Ash’s opinion to the contrary was inconsistent with the record as a whole.
See Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002); 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). The ALJ’s determination that Bradford could
stand for six hours and perform light work was supported by substantial evidence.
* * *
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-8-

-- 8 of 8 --