Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-15-01530/USCOURTS-ca6-15-01530-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Appellee
Angela Porter
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0181n.06

No. 15-1530

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ANGELA PORTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

BEFORE: MERRITT, BATCHELDER, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Angela Porter appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the denial 

of her application for supplemental security income benefits.

In 2011, Porter filed an application for supplemental security income benefits, alleging 

that she became disabled on January 26, 2011. After the Social Security Administration denied 

the application, Porter requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ 

denied Porter relief, concluding that she was not disabled. The Appeals Council declined to 

review the case. The district court affirmed the denial of Porter’s application.

On appeal, Porter argues that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence 

because he failed to properly assess the medical-opinion evidence. “Our review of the ALJ’s 

decision is limited to whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and whether the 

findings of the ALJ are supported by substantial evidence.” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 

 Case: 15-1530 Document: 16-2 Filed: 03/31/2016 Page: 1
No. 15-1530, Porter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 2 -

581 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2009) “The substantial-evidence standard is met if a reasonable 

mind might accept the relevant evidence as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at 406 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We give de novo review to the district court’s 

conclusions on each issue. Id.

Porter first argues that the ALJ erred by failing to give controlling weight to a medical 

opinion signed by Dr. Douglas Bentley that was based on an evaluation by Renee Bentley, a 

social worker in Dr. Bentley’s clinic, that concluded that Porter was totally disabled. A medical 

opinion from a treating source must be given controlling weight if it is well-supported by 

medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with 

other substantial evidence in the record. Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 

(6th Cir. 2013). A treating source is a physician, psychologist, or other acceptable medical 

source who has provided the claimant with medical treatment or evaluation and has had an 

ongoing relationship with the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 416.902.

Renee Bentley does not qualify as a treating source because she is not a physician, 

psychologist, or other acceptable medical source. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a). And Dr. Bentley 

is not a treating source because he never examined Porter and instead based his conclusions on a 

single evaluation conducted by Renee Bentley. See Kornecky v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 

167 F. App’x 496, 506 (6th Cir. 2006). Thus, the ALJ did not err by declining to give 

controlling weight to the medical opinion at issue.

Porter also argues that the ALJ erred by giving no weight to the opinion signed by Dr. 

Bentley and by accepting the medical opinion of a reviewing psychologist, who concluded that 

Porter was not disabled. When there is no treating-source opinion that is deemed controlling, an 

ALJ must weigh medical opinions based on the nature of the treatment relationships, the 

 Case: 15-1530 Document: 16-2 Filed: 03/31/2016 Page: 2
No. 15-1530, Porter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 3 -

specialization of the medical sources, and the consistency and supportability of the opinions. 

Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376.

Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s assessment of the medical opinion evidence, 

given that the majority of evidence in the record, including medical treatment notes and evidence 

of Porter’s daily activities and abilities, suggested that Porter was not suffering from disabling 

limitations.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

 Case: 15-1530 Document: 16-2 Filed: 03/31/2016 Page: 3