Galm v. Eaton Corporation - Northern District of Iowa

Record at 001637.
or lumbosacral spine which would preclude the claimant from
performing “any occupation.” There is no demonstrable
evidence by examination or by functional capacity evaluation
that the claimant has significantly restricted endurance for
sitting, standing and/or walking, despite her complaints to the
contrary. Also, there is no demonstrable evidence of significant
functional impairment with respect to cognition, speech, or use
of upper extremities.
Fourth, Dr. Glassman, a psychiatrist, concluded from his review of the
administrative record that:
Record at 001642.
The medical record does not support a psychiatric illness of an
incapacitating nature. The claimant has not been under formal
psychiatric or psychological treatment for the diagnosis of
depression. Evaluation performed in the Mayo Clinic,
December 2000 made a diagnosis of major depressive disorder.
The diagnosis itself does not note incapacity and there is no
supporting documentation that describes functional impairments
that would indicate incapacity.
Fifth, Dr. Burstein, a psychologist, concluded from his review of Galm’s medical
records that this documentation did not show evidence of a functional impairment which
would preclude Galm from working:
[T]he documentation provided for review does not show
evidence of impairments in psychological functioning which
would preclude Ms. Galm from performing work. As
indicated, Ms. Galm has not sought out formal psychological or
psychiatric treatment. While she did have a consultation with
a psychiatrist and a psychologist, these consultations were part
of a complete physical workup rather than as part of an
intention to receive treatment for her depressive symptoms.
The depression itself is typically described as being secondary
28