context: In particular, the ALJ noted that Woods has consistently reported doing well on her medications since the alleged onset date, with no psychotic symptoms or significant disturbance in her mood. While Dr. Fontaine's notes do indicate that Woods is stable for the most part when she is medicated, that is not inconsistent with his conclusion that adding a daily work schedule to her life would cause her to become unstable.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 564 F.3d 943, 943
citation_a.parenthetical: treating physician's opinion that claimant was disabled was not inconsistent with the fact that her "schizoaffective disorder was in remission," because physician's notes "do not indicate that [physician] believed she was sufficiently stable to return to work, even if she was compliant with recommended treatment and medication."
citation_a.sentence: See Pate-Fires, 564 F.3d at 943 (treating physician’s opinion that claimant was disabled was not inconsistent with the fact that her “schizoaffective disorder was in remission,” because physician’s notes “do not indicate that [physician] believed she was sufficiently stable to return to work, even if she was compliant with recommended treatment and medication.”); see also Hutsell v. Massanari, 259 F.3d 707, 712 (8th Cir.2001) (“We also believe the Commissioner erroneously relied too heavily on indications in the medical record that Hutsel was ‘doing well,’ because doing well for the purposes of a treatment program has no necessary relation to a claimant’s ability to work or to her work-related functional capacity.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 259 F.3d 707, 712
citation_b.parenthetical: "We also believe the Commissioner erroneously relied too heavily on indications in the medical record that Hutsel was 'doing well,' because doing well for the purposes of a treatment program has no necessary relation to a claimant's ability to work or to her work-related functional capacity."
citation_b.sentence: See Pate-Fires, 564 F.3d at 943 (treating physician’s opinion that claimant was disabled was not inconsistent with the fact that her “schizoaffective disorder was in remission,” because physician’s notes “do not indicate that [physician] believed she was sufficiently stable to return to work, even if she was compliant with recommended treatment and medication.”); see also Hutsell v. Massanari, 259 F.3d 707, 712 (8th Cir.2001) (“We also believe the Commissioner erroneously relied too heavily on indications in the medical record that Hutsel was ‘doing well,’ because doing well for the purposes of a treatment program has no necessary relation to a claimant’s ability to work or to her work-related functional capacity.”).