# Robert J. Lauer v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security

> Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · April 4, 2001 · 245 F.3d 700

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9493918

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert J. LAUER, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 4, 2001
- **Citations:** 245 F.3d 700; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 10975; 2001 WL 322161
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Loken
- **Judges:** Loken, Lay, Arnold
- **Cited by:** 599 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9493918

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “the ALJ was required to consider at least some supporting evidence from a [medical] professional” and erred by formulating a mental RFC with only social limitations when both the treating psychiatrist and psychological consultative examiner imposed additional men…
- concluding that an ALJ should have obtained “professional assistance” because evaluation of a claimant’s psychological impairments “was impossible without first obtaining [and interpreting] the results of three standardized psychological tests”
- recognizing that “‘[s]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ‘ability to function in the workplace’”
- finding that medical evidence “must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ‘ability to function in the workplace,’ . . . .”
- recognizing “some medical evidence” must support the ALJ’s RFC findings and the ALJ should obtain some medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s “ability to function in the workplace”

## Opinion text

LOKEN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Robert Lauer applied for benefits on November 14, 1994, claiming a disability onset date of August 31, 1993, caused by continuing pain from back, neck, leg, and arm injuries in an auto accident. His application was denied in January 1995, and he requested reconsideration in March 1995, alleging the same disabling physical impairments. After the denial was upheld on reconsideration, Lauer requested a hearing on June 12, 1995. Four days later — nearly two years after the alleged disability onset date — Lauer was examined by a psychiatrist for the first time. On August 22, 1996, three weeks after the administrative hearing, Dr. Bohrod wrote to Lauer’s attorney that Lauer “may do some independent work.” Like the district court, I conclude that the administrative record, fairly viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence süpporting the Commissioner’s decision to deny disability benefits. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9493918. Public record. Not legal advice.