top of page

Eighth Circuit Upholds ALJ Discretion in Disability Claims

  • juliana9396
  • Jun 5
  • 2 min read
reading a case book social security disability

In Cropper v. Dudek, the Eighth Circuit upheld the denial of disability benefits, reinforcing the Social Security Administration's (SSA) post-2017 approach to evaluating medical opinions. This decision underscores the importance of presenting persuasive, well-supported medical evidence in disability claims.


Background of the Case


Cropper applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in 2020, citing mental and physical impairments. He submitted medical opinions from his psychiatrist, Dr. Lee Lutes, and his primary care provider, Physician Assistant Kiana Deal, both indicating marked limitations.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) acknowledged Cropper's severe impairments but found the medical opinions unpersuasive due to:


  • Lack of support in treatment notes.

  • Inconsistencies with the overall medical record.

  • PA Deal's lack of specialization in mental health.


The Appeals Council and district court affirmed the ALJ's decision, and the Eighth Circuit concurred.


Understanding the Legal Framework


For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, the evaluation of medical opinions is governed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c. Under these regulations:


  • Supportability: The extent to which a medical source presents objective medical evidence and supporting explanations for their opinion.

  • Consistency: The degree to which a medical opinion aligns with evidence from other medical and nonmedical sources.


These are the primary factors the ALJ must articulate when evaluating the persuasiveness of medical opinions. Other factors, such as the relationship with the claimant, specialization, and other considerations, may be considered but are not required to be articulated in every case.


Court's Analysis and Holding


The Eighth Circuit found that:


  • The ALJ adequately explained the decision under the revised regulations.

  • Conservative treatment approaches, stable mental status examinations, and normal daily activities (e.g., fishing, travel) undermined the providers' assessments of extreme limitations.

  • The court would not reweigh the evidence, reinforcing the "zone of choice" standard, which allows ALJs discretion in evaluating evidence as long as the decision is supported by substantial evidence.


Practical Tips for Attorneys


To navigate the current regulatory landscape effectively:


1. Prioritize Persuasiveness Over Provider Status


Treating source status no longer guarantees deference. Focus on presenting well-supported and consistent medical opinions.


2. Enhance Supportability


  • Encourage providers to include detailed narrative explanations.

  • Ensure opinions are backed by specific observations and clinical findings.


3. Address Consistency Proactively


  • Discuss activities of daily living and treatment compliance upfront.

  • Be aware that notes about activities like fishing or vacations can impact the perceived severity of impairments.


4. Consider the Source's Specialization


Be cautious when mental health limitations are assessed by non-specialists, as their opinions may carry less weight.


5. Build a Comprehensive Record


  • Ensure that medical opinions reflect the full scope of the record, including objective findings, clinical history, and nonmedical evidence.


6. Understand the "Zone of Choice"


Recognize that courts will uphold an ALJ's decision if it falls within a reasonable range of conclusions, even if alternative interpretations exist.


Conclusion


The Cropper decision highlights the necessity for attorneys to adapt to the SSA's revised framework for evaluating medical opinions. Success hinges on presenting persuasive, well-supported, and consistent medical evidence rather than relying solely on provider status or the volume of documentation.


For further insights into disability law, consider exploring our Disability Law Practice Area.

Comments


TLG Logo White
Phone Icon - TLG Yellow
IG Logo - Gold
Facebook Logo - Gold
TLG X Logo
TLG Linked In Footer Logo

FLORIDA

800 Executive Drive,

Oviedo, FL 32765

6900 Tavistock Lakes Blvd Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32827

STAY UP TO DATE

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay up to date with Tower Law Group.

INDIANA

201 N. Illinois St.

16th Floor - South Tower

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Copyright © 2025 Tower Law Group All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  | Disclaimer  | Law Firm Accessibility Statement  |  Terms of Use

 

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: 

We appreciate your interest in Tower Law Group. Please know that our website is provided for informational purposes only. It should not be considered legal advice and visitors to our website should not take action upon this information without first discussing it with a legal professional.

 

Your visit to this website or transmission of information does not create an attorney-client relationship with Tower Law Group generally, or any of its attorneys. If you wish to contact anyone at Tower Law Group please do not disclose any information that you consider to be confidential in that communication. Before an attorney-client relationship can be established, an attorney from Tower Law Group will need to confirm that the firm does not already represent another entity involved in the matter and that the firm is willing to accept representation.

 

Tower Law Group will regard any information or materials you transmit as confidential only after this confirmation by the firm to you that it is willing to accept representation. Until such time, all unsolicited inquiries or information received by Tower Law Group will not be regarded as confidential, even if considered confidential by you, and will not preclude the firm from accepting representation of other entities that may be adverse to your interests.

Custom law firm websites from Practice42.
The hiring of a lawyer in an important decision that should not be based on advertising.
The information on this website is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.
The use of the website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.

practice-white
bottom of page