With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ALJ in the first instance to determine a claimant’s real motivation for failing to follow prescribed treatment or seek medical attention.”). The record shows that plaintiff was taking pain medication prior to, and after her surgery, to control pain. There is no indication that pain medication was ineffective at that time. In fact, plaintiff showed marked improvement and was told she should limit the amount of pain medication. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to suggest plaintiff attempted to obtain low-cost pain medication or assistance, or was prevented from obtaining medication or care due to a lack of insurance or finances. The ALJ noted, however, that plaintiff was able to afford at least a pack a day tobacco habit. Osborne v. Barnhart, 316 F.3d 809, 812 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Riggins v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 689, 693 (8th

A: recognizing that a lack of funds may justify a failure to receive medical care however a plaintiffs case is buttressed by evidence he related an inability to afford prescriptions to his provider and was denied the prescription
B: recognizing that a defendant physicians own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiffs failure to call an independent expert on the standard of care
C: holding that a plaintiffs failure to submit evidence of continuing treatment by a health care provider as defined by the regulations was fatal to a plaintiffs fmla interference claim regardless of the defendants alleged failure to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to cure medical certification deficiencies
D: holding that the movants assertion that he failed to advise the plea court of counsels alleged deficiencies because he blamed himself for his lack of funds was undermined by the fact that the plea court advised the movant that he had the right to appointed counsel if he could not afford to pay for counsel
A.