NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0293n.06 Filed: Apr il 26, 2007 No. 06-5859

UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT ERIC L. LANCASTER, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendan t-Appellee. / ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE EA S TE RN D IS TR IC T O F K EN TU CKY

BEF OR E: CO LE, CL AY , a nd G ILM AN , C ir c uitJudg e s. CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge. Plaintiff Eric L . L anca ster appe als the district court’ s g rant of

sum m ar y judgme nt in favor of Def endant Commissioner of Social Secur ity in this action broug ht

u n d er 4 2 U. S

. C

. § 4 0 5 (g) t o o b t ai nj u d i ci al re v i ew o f ad ec i s i o nfr o man ad m i n i s t ra t i v e l aw j u d ge (“A L J ”) de nying Plaintiff’ s application for disability insurance benef its. For the r easons that f

ollow,

we RE VE RSE the district court’s de cision and REMAND to the district court for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.No. 06-5859

Th e pa rt ie s did no t su

bmi t a Joint Ap pe nd ix; ra the r, the Court ha s “ a fu ll and acc ur a te 1 transcr ipt of the entire r ecor d of proceeding s relating to this case .” (J.A. 1) For purposes of c iting to th e r e c o r d , th e Co u rt w il l r e f e r to th e r e c o r d

a s Jo int A

p p e n d ix. Plaintiff alleg es that he ha s been una ble to w ork since July

24, 2002, approximately

three 2 months prior to his last surge ry . Throug hout the rec ord Dr. V aug han’s last name is incorre ctly spelled “V aug hn.” 3 2 BACK GR OUND A. P laintif

f’s Medical History Pla int if f w a s b or n o n O c tob e r 2 3, 19 65

. He is a high s c ho ol gra du a te and ha s w or ke d a s a d el i v ery dri v er an d m ac h i n e o p er at o r. P l ai n t i ff al l ege s t h at h e ha s b ee n u n ab l e to wo rk d u e t o “H i gh Blood Pressur e, Dig ener ative [sic] Disk Disease , [and] Severe Gauti [sic] Ar t h ri t i s .” (J.A. 91) 1 Plaintiff also has “ s y

m p t o m s o f depre ssion and anxiety .” (J.A. 229) Plaintiff has had “ 3 spinal surg erie s to repair

ruptured disks,” ( J .A. 91), including“[a]nterior cer vic a l d is k e c tomy

and interbody fusion” on September

16, 1996, (J.A. 151); “[l ]um bar laminectomy infusion” on Fe bruar y 26, 2001, (J.A. 155); and “ante rior ce rvica l diskectomy and fusion with bone p l ate” on November 8, 2002, (J.A. 159). 2 Plaintiff’s treating phy sician, John J . Vaug han, M.D. (“ Dr. Va ug han”) , has pr o v i ded

3 numerous opinions conce rning Plaintiff’s functional li mitations and employ ability

. On J anuar y 6, 2003, Dr. Va

ug han noted that “ [g]iven the fac t he has a very stiff neck w ith mult iple fusions and a lower ba ck fusion, I

am doubtful he will be a

ble to r eturn to any

ty pe of g ainful employ

ment.” (J.A. 200) On June 1, 2004, Vaug han stated that “there is no way [ P l ai n t i ff

] could g o back a

nd do anyNo. 06-5859

3 ty pe of g a inf ul e mpl oy

me nt a c tiv ity . H e is l imi te d b y c onti nu ed pai n and la c k o f m ob ili ty in h is spine.” (J.A. 352) More spe cifica lly , Dr. Va ug han indicate d that Plaintiff is [not ] capa

ble of lifting more than 5 pounds. He c an do little to no bending or twisting of his ne ck or lower ba ck. He is unable to sit for more than 5-7 m inutes at a time, or g reater than 1 hour per da y . He is unable to stand or wa lk more than 5 -7 m inutes at a time, and no mor e tha n 1 ho ur pe r d ay . He fr e qu e ntl y ha s to lie d ow n to re lie ve his pain. (J.A. 352) On Fe bruar

y 5, 2003, a phy sician associated wit h Def endant, Kenneth P hillips , M.D. (“D r. P h illips ”), f

ound that Plaintiff could “[ o ] c c as ion all y li f t an d /o r c ar r y . . . 2 0 p o u n d s ,” and

“ fre que nt lylif

t and /or c arr y . . . 1 0 p ound s. ” (J.A . 1 89 ) (em ph asis in o ri g ina l) . A ft e r a sin g le

me dic a l e va luatio n, Dr. P hi llips d e te rm ine d th a t Pla int if f c ou ld s it, “ [s]tand

and /or wa lk ( wi th normal brea

ks) for a total of

. . . about 6 hours in an 8- hour workda y ,” id. , but that “[Pl aintiff] had postural limitations such as no climbing of ropes or scaf folds and only

occa sional stooping.” ( Gov’t B r. a t 5; se e als o J.A. 19 0) Dr . Ph ill ips fo un d th a t he ha d li mit e d o ve rh e a d r e a c h, and sh ou ld “ a vo id even mode rate exposure” to vibration. (J.A. 192) (ca pitaliz ation omitted). On J une 3, 2003, Richard Sheridan, M.D. (“D r. Sheridan” ) examined Plaintiff and found that Plaintiff could “wor

k with [ cer

tain] permanent re strictions,” including 1) “[n] o l i ft , push, pull or

car ry of any thing g reater than 10 lbs. to 15 lbs. fre quently an d 1 5 lbs. to 20 lbs. i nfre quently ,” 2)

“ [n ]o c li mb in g , ” 3 ) “ [n ]o r a p id ma nu a l d e xte r ity w o r

k w it hth e r igh t u

p p e r e xtr e mi ty , ” 4 ) “ [n ]o

e xpos ur e to t e mpe ratur e e xtre me s w iththe ri g ht up pe r e xtre mity ,” and 5) “ [n]o us e of vib ra tin g too ls with the rig ht upper e x tremity .” (J.A. 253) After a single medical e valuation, Dr. Sher idan opined that “[Pl aintiff] is at max imum medical improvement.” Id.No. 06-5859

4 L ast, Plaintiff was examined by Timothy Kriss, M.D. (“Dr. Kr iss”), a “ neurosur g ery and spine specia list,” on Febr uary 17, 2004. (J.A. 285) Dr. Kriss found that [P laintiff] did have previous ante rior ce rvica l diskectomy and fusion s u r g e r y . . . in 1 9 9 5

. H e d o e s h a v e a “ c o n g e n it a l” f u s io n . . . . Howeve r, I

don’t find convincingevidenc e that these conditions were o n g o i n g an d

a c t i v e a tt h e t i m e o f

t h e J u l y 2 4 t h , 2 0 0 2 w o r k i n j u r y. Th e patie nt a

pp e are d to be qu ite c a

pa ble of wo rk in g i n th is same f a c to r y a t th is s ame mo d e r a te ly p h y s ic a ll y d e ma n d in g job f

or approximately

18 months without any documented signific ant cer vical sy mptoms, restrictions, or treatment prior to J uly 24th, 2002. (J.A. 289) Unlike Dr. Sherida n, Dr. Kr iss found that “[Plaintiff’s] cervica l condition may improve

s lightly or per haps moderately

over time with some additional tre atment.” Id. Dr . Kri ss

“ re c omm e nd [ed ] pe rm ane nt r e str ic tio ns of no lif tin g > 30 po un ds , no fr e qu e nt lif tin g > 15 po un ds , the avoidanc e of f

reque nt repe titive bending/twisting of t he neck, no climbing, a nd minimi zation of overhe ad wor

k.” Id. After conducting

on l y o n e e x am i n at i o n , Dr s . P h i l l i p s , S h er i d an , an d Kr i s s fo u n d

t h at P l ai n tiff was phy sically

limit ed, but not as limited as i n dicated by Dr. Va ug han. Ea ch phy sician re ported differ ent deg ree s of phy sical limitation. As P laintiff’s tre ating phy sician, Dr. Vaug han has had the opportunity

to examine and treat Plainti ff since 1996. Over the cour se of his long -term medic al treatment, Dr. Va

ug han’s diag nosis has been c onsistent. Compare J .A. 352 with J .A. 248 and J .A. 270. B. P lai nt iff’s Vo c at ion al E va lua ti ons P l a i n t i f f h a d a “ V o c a t i o n a l an d

O c c u p a t i o n a l E mp l o y a

b i l i t y E v a l u a t i o n ” w i t hR a l p h M. Cry stal, Ph.D. (“Dr

. Cry stal”), a vocational ex pert and consultant, on Fe bruar y 13, 2004. (J.A. 139) Dr. Cry stal conclude d thatNo. 06-5859

5 [f] rom a vocational pe rspec tive at the cur rent leve ls of phy sical and mental func tioning ther e are unskil led, s emi-skilled, and skilled jobs that are perf

ormed at the sedenta

ry , light, and me dium levels of exertion within t he fr amew o rk o f the a ssessments indicated [by the dif fe re nt ph y sic ians wh o have e xami ne d Pl a int if f]. [Pla int if

f] w ou ld be able to perfor

m a wide r ang e of jobs in occupational areas suc h as c l e r i c a l , f a c t o r i e s , a n d r e l a t e d

s e t t i n g s , w h i c he x i s ti nt h e e c o n o m y. Such jobs are ty

pically perf ormed at a b ench, desk, table, or w ork station. [ Plaintiff] is not disabled from em p loy ment even w ith the most restrictive combination of impairme nts. (J.A. 147) On May 13 , 2 00 4, and

May 14 , 2 00 4, Pla int if

f “ pa rt ic ipate d i n a Fun ctio na l Ca pa c ity Evaluation.” ( J .A. 330) In the cour se of the e valuation,

[P laintiff] demonstrated the ability to toler ate work a ctivities below the c ri te ri a

fo r Se de nta

ry wo rk le ve l. T he Se de nta

ry wo rk le ve l is ch ar acterized by exerting up to 10 pounds rar ely / oc casiona lly , a n egl i gi b l e a m o u n to f f

o rc e f re qu en t l y , an d

n o co n s t an tl i ft i n g. Id. T h e e v al u at i o nco n cl u d edt h at P l ai n t i ff “i s u n ab l e t o p er fo rm l i ft s , ca rr i es , p u s h i n g, p u l l i n g,

crouc hing, ba lancing , re petitive squatting, kne eling , hand use, w alking , or cr awlingwithout signf icant [sic] chang es in pain and se nsation,” (J.A. 334). C. P lai nt iff’s P sy c hol og ic al E va lua ti ons Plaintiff als o h as h ad numerous psy cholog ical eva luations. Marc Plavin, Ph.D. (“D r. Plavin”), a l i cense d psy cholog ist, evaluated Plaintiff on May 3, 2003, and conc luded that he ha d “[m] ajor de press i ve disorder , rec urre nt, moderate .” (J.A. 229) On May 13, 2003, L aura

Cutler, Ph.D. (“Dr

. Cutler”) found that, in the context of moderate, re curr ent depr ession, “[Pl aintiff] retains the c a pa c ity to: A) [u]nd e rs tand and

re me mbe r i ns tr

uc tio ns ; B ) [s ]ust a in attn e tio n [si c ] to c omp le te tasks; C) [ t] olerate co-worker s, supervisors[ ] in a non-public setting [and] (D) [a]dapt to chang esNo. 06-5859

6 in a routine wor

k setting.” Id. (for

mattin g omitted). On September 26, 2003, a licensed c linical psy cholog ist, S tuart A. Cooke, Ph.D. (“ Dr. Cooke” ), diagnosed Plaintiff with “De pre s sive Disorder ” and “Panic Disorder ,” and note d “Psy chosocia l Stressors: Pain, lo s s o f i n come, se parat[ ion] from wife f or 8 y ear s, single pa

rent, [and] c ousin’s death.” (J.A. 261) More rec ently , on Marc h 4, 2004, Robert P. Grana cher , J r., M.D. (“ Dr. Gr anac her” ), a psychiatrist, diag nosed Plaintiff with “[m ]ood disorder ( major depr ession) due to spinal patholog y .” (J.A. 303) He found that “[Pl aintiff] doe s not

re qu i re p s y ch i at ri c re s t ri ct i o n s u p o nj o b p er fo rm an ce . . . . [ an d ] h as t h e m en t al cap ac i t y t o en gage in any work he is trained, educ ated, or experience d to perfor

m.” Id. D. P laintif

f’s App lications f

or Disability In surance Benefits Pla int if f f i l e d a na p p l i c a t i o nf

o r d i s a b i l i t y i n s u r an c e b e n e f

i t s w i t ht h e S o c ia l Se c ur ity Ad min istratio n ( “ SSA ” ) o n D e c e mbe r 31, 20 02 , indi c a tin g that he “b e c a me un a ble to w or k b e c a us e of [a] d isa bli ngc on dit ion

on July 24 , 2 00 2. ” (J.A . 6 8) I n p ro c e ssi ngPla int if f’ s c la im, th e SSA

re vie we d me dic a l r e c or ds and e va luatio ns . O n F e br

ua ry 12 , 2 00 3, the SSA de nie d Pl a int if f’ s c la im concludingthat “[b] ased on a revie w of [Plainti ff’ s] m edica l problems [P laintiff] do[ es] not qualify fo r b e ne fi ts .

. . . be c a

us e [Pla int if

f] [is] no t disa

ble d und e r our ru le s. ” (J.A . 47) I n p e rt ine nt p art , the SSA found that

[t ]he medical evide nce show s that [P laintiff] ha[s ] b ee n t reated for [hi s] conditi ons. [P laintiff] report[s] dege n erative disc disease , the me dic a l e vid e nc e sh ow s th a t th e re is n o s ig nif ic ant r e str ic tio n in [[Pla int if f’ s] abil ity

to s tand and wa lk .

. . . [Pla int if

f] r e po rt [s] art hr iti s, the me dia c l [si c] e vid e nc e sh ow s th a t [Pla int if f] h a [s] ad eq u at e m o v em en tan d s t re n gt hi n[ h i s ] j o i n t s . Al t h o u gh [Pla int if f’ s] bloo d pre ssu

re may be c ome highe r tha n nor ma l at ti me s, thi s c on dit ion has n ot c a

us e d a ny sig nif ic ant d a ma g e to [h is] e y e s, he art, li v e r o r k id

n e y s . [P la inti f

f ] r e p o rt[ s ] a c id r e f

lux, th e medicalNo. 06-5859

7 rec ords show that this condition does not severly [si c] affe ct [[ Plaintiff’s] gene ral he alth . . . . W e h av e d et erm i n ed t h at [ P l ai n t i ff ’s ] co n d i t i o ni s n o ts ev er e e n o u gh t o k ee p [ P l ai n t i ff

] fr o m wo rk i n g. (J.A . 4 7) Pla int if

f a pp e a le d th e SSA de c isi on . O n M arc h 26, 20 04 , a nd Au g us t 2, 20 04 , a

n A L J hel d

a hear ing on Plaintiff’s application for disability benef its. (J .A. 360-69, 370-92) Plaintiff testified

a t th e he ari ngand

re po rt e d th a t he ha s ba c k and ne c k pr ob le ms and “ sig nif ic ant we a kn e ss i n [hi s] ri g ht h and . [Pla int if

f] h a [s] a lot of pa in that run s dow n [his] rig ht ar m and [his ] ri g ht s ho uld e r h ur ts, almost constantly .” (J.A. 383) The ALJ h ea rd testimony from a voc ational expert, J oy ce F orre st (“F orre st” or “the

vo c a tio na l e xpe rt ” ), a t th e Au g us t 2, 20 04 he ari ng . T he AL J ask e d F or re st: We’ll assume a hy

pothetical individual, 37, the time [P laintiff] filed his c ur re nt cl a im. He ha s a twe lf th- g ra de e du c a tio n. As sume , a fi rs t hy pothetical individual could l ift 20 pounds occa sionally , 10 pounds more fr equently , st and, walk 6/8, sit 6/8, no limi ts on the pushing wi t h t h e a r m . N o cl i mb i n g ro p e s ca ff o l d s an d l ad d er s o r c ra wl i n g, occa sionally

climb ramps and stairs, and stoop freque ntly , kneel a nd crouc h. Oc ca s i o n al l y , Ih ad i t wr i t t en , o cc as i o n al o v erh ea d re ac h i n g, no vib ra tio n, and has mo derate lim itatio ns in a bil ity to m a int a in a tte nti on and c on c e ntr a tio n f

or e xten de d p e ri od

and ina bil ity to complete a

norm al workday

and wor kwee k without interruptions from psy cholog ically -base d sy mptoms, and perf

orm on a consistent pa c e wi tho ut a

n unr e a so na

ble numbe r a

nd len g th o f r e st p e ri od s, moderately

limited abilit

y to interac t ap p ropriately with ge nera l public, can understand and reme mber inst ructions, s ustain attention to c omp le te a

ta sk , to le rate c o- e mpl oye e s, su pe rv iso rs in a

no n- pu bli c setting, c an ada

pt to chang es in routin e wo rk s ett ing. G iven that hy pothetical, could this individual do any of [Pl aintiff’s] past rele vant w o r k ? (J.A. 365-66) (empha sis added). F orre st asked the AL J to clarify whether the hy pothetical question indicated “ mi ld res tr ict ion s o n th at l as t pa rt? ” ( J

. A

. 3 6 6 ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )

. A l t h o u g ht h e A LJNo. 06-5859

8 orig inally indicated a

“ mo de ra te ly

l i m i t edab i l i t y ” i nt h e h y

p o t h et i ca l question, he answe red F orre st’s question in the aff

irmative. (J.A. 366) For

rest testified that the hy

pothetical individual “could not do” Plaintiff’s “pa st releva nt work.” Id. Th e AL J the n a sk e d F or

re st: Now, assume the s econd hy pothetical individual could lift 10 to 15 pounds fre quently , 15 to 20 pounds infr eq u en t ly , no climbing, no rapid manua l, okay , no rapid, manua l dext erity work with the rig ht upper e x tremity , no temperature ex tremes, e x posure to temper ature extremes would be the r ight uppe r extremity , and no use of vibrator y tools with t he rig ht upper e x tremity . Could that indi vidual do a, in addition to al l the mental factors I gaveyou in the first hypothetical , could that individual do a ra ng e of lig ht work? (J.A. 366) (empha sis added)

. For rest testi fied that the sec ond hy pothetical individual could per form “work su c h a s a ti c k e t ta k e r o r a tt e n d an t, d e s k c le r k , r e c r e a ti o n s f

a c il it y a tt e n d an t. ” ( J.A. 367) These positions wer e “just re prese n t at i ve examples.” Id. For rest adde d that “[w]i thin that hy pothetical, in Kentuc ky in the light categ ory , there exis ts at least 11,000 such jobs, and within the U.S., at least 902,000 such jobs.” Id. Th e AL J pose d a

“ thi rd hy po the tic a l” to t

he vo c a tio na l e xpe rt : [A] n in dividual would be prohibited fr om repe titive weig hts five pound, li ft ing r epetitive we ight, r epetitive lifting of we ights five pounds or m o re , no overhe ad lifting more than te n pounds, no bend in g o r

tw is ti n g , n e e d s ana lt e r n a te s it

- s ta

n d

. Co u ld

th at ind ivi du a l do a ra

ng e of se de nta

ry wo rk , wi th that, wi th th ose re str ic tio ns ? (J.A. 367) Forr est testified that this third hy pothetical individual could pe rf o rm sedenta

ry work “[a]nd, in s ecur ity

there [are] jobs such as a g ate attendant or surveillance sy stem monitor . . . . [ a]nd the re e xists in K e ntu c ky

. . . . a t le a st 1, 00 0 su c h job s . . . . [a ]nd w ith in t he U. S., the re are a t le a stNo. 06-5859

9 100,000 such jobs.” (367-68) The AL J inquired about other jobs “besides surve illance monitor.” (J.A . 3 68 ) F or

re st i nd ic ate d th a t “[a ]s a

g e ne ra l of

fi c e c le rk , at le a st 5 0 p e rc e nt o f t ho se job s sh ou ld fall within that cate g ory , and within Kentucky there , 50 perc ent of the sede ntary g ener al offic e wor

k is 6,000 such j obs

. . . . [a] nd within the U.S ., at l east 450,000 such j obs.” (J.A. 368) De fenda nt’s counsel a lso ex amined the vocational ex pert and asked her to assume that the hy pothetical individual

“ mus t li e do wn

. . . at le a st s ome of the tim e .” (J.A

. 36 9) F or re st ind ic a te d that ly

ingdo wn “ wo uld aff ect the job definitely .” I ndeed, “ [i ]t would eliminate the ability to perfor m, it would elimi nate the jobs [ ] enumerated.” (J.A. 369) The AL J denied Plaintiff’s claim on J anuar y 13, 2005, finding that “[Pl aintiff] is not di sabled within the meaning of the Social Sec urity Act.” ( J .A. 18) The AL J found that Plaintiff’s “a lleg ations

re g ard inghis lim itatio ns are no t tot a lly c re dib le .” (J.A

. 25 ) Th e AL J sta te d th a t Pla int if f’ s “ mental im pa irm e nts c au se

s m ild re str ic tio ns of h is a c tiv iti es of da ily liv ing an d m od e ra te dif fic ult ie s in maintaining social functioning , ” i n cl u d i n g “ moderate de ficiencies in conce ntration, persistenc e, or pa c e .” (J.A . 2 0) (e mph a sis a dd e d) . N e ve rt he le ss, the AL J found

tha t Pla int if f i s able to wa lk around the park; t hrow the football with his son; watch movies at home with his son; dr ive; help his son to school; fix food; shop for gr ocer ies; handle money responsibilities; watch television; visit wit h frien d s / re latives; do some household chore s; read the ne ws pap er; us e the te le ph on e ; atte nd mov ie s; a

nd a tte nd to h is pe rs on a l ne e ds

. (J.A. 20) The AL J conclude d that Plaintiff

re t ai n s t h e f

o l l o wi n g re s i d

u al fu n ct i o n al cap ac i t y : n o l i ft i n g, p u s h i n g, p u l ling or

car rying of any thing g reater than 10 to 15 pounds fr e qu e ntl y

and 15 to 2 0 p ound s in fr e qu e ntl y ; no c lim bing ; no ra

pid manu a l de xter ity wo rk wi th the ri g ht upp e r e xtre mity ; no e xpos ur e to temperature e x tremes with the r ight uppe r extremity ; no use ofNo. 06-5859

10 vibrating tools with t he rig ht upper ex tremity ; [ he] can unde rstand and re me mbe r i ns tr

uc tio ns , su st a in atte nti on to c omp le te ta sk s, tolerate co-w orker s and super visors in a non-public setting, and ada pt to chang es in a routine w ork setting ; his abilit ies to maintain attention and conc entration f

or extended period, to c omplete a nor mal workda

y and wor kwee k withou t interruptions from psy cholog ically based sy mpt oms and

pe rf or m at a c on sis te nt pa c e wi tho ut an unr e a so na ble numbe r an d len g th of re st pe ri od s, and to int e ra c t a pp ro pr iate ly

wi th the g ener al public, are mode rately limited. (J.A . 2 2) (e mph a sis a dd e d) . A c c or din g to t he AL J, Pla int if

f “ ha s th e re sid

ua l f un c tio na l c a

pa c ity to pe rf or m a sig nif ic ant r ang e of

lig ht w or k. ” (J.A. 26 ) “E xamp le s o f s uc h jo bs inc lud e wo rk a s a tic ke t take r, de sk

c le rk and re c re a tio n aid e -- the re are 11 ,0 00 su c h jobs in the state and 90 2, 00 0 in the nation.” ( J .A. 26) The AL J indicated that the

conclusion that [Pl aintiff] is not disabled i s further supported by

the opinions of the S t at e ag ency medical c onsultants. As those of no ne xami nin g ph y sic ians , th e ir op ini on s a

re no t en title d to controlling weig ht, but must be considered and weig hed as those of hig hly qu a lif ie d ph y sic ians and ps y c ho log ist s w ho a lso are e xpe rt s in the e va luatio n o f t

he me dic a l is su e s in

dis a bil ity c la ims

. (J.A. 22) Th e AL J note d “ Dr . V a ug hn ’s [sic ] opi nio n th a t [Pla int if f] i s d isa ble d, ” but he ld t

hat his opini o n . . . is an opinion on an issue that is reser ved to the Commi ssioner and, thus, is neve r entitled to controlling weig ht or specia l significa

nce . . . . I

n this case, t h e [AL J ] finds t hat Dr. Vaug hn’s [ s i c] opinion of disabili ty and his specif

ic assessments of [P laintiff’s] residual func tional capa city are not well-supp o rt ed by medically acc ept able clinical and labor atory diag nostic techniques and ar e inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the rec ord, inc lud ingthe br oa d rang e of a c tiv iti e s o f d a ily

liv ingin whic h is a

ble to eng ag e. (J.A. 22-23) The Appe als Council affir med the AL J ’s decision. On Aug ust 8, 2005, Plaintiff c ommenced this action challeng ing the Appea ls Council’s de cision. The case was re fer red to a Mag istrate Judge.No. 06-5859

11 On Ap ri l 10, 2006, the Mag istrate Judge r ecommende d that the district court g rant summary jud g me nt i n f

avo r o f D e fe nd ant a

nd a ff ir m th e de nia l of

P lai nt if f’ s a pp lic a tio n f

or dis a bil ity insurance benef

its. I n the re commendation, the Ma g istrate Judge noted that “[i] n his decision, the AL J summarized all of t he medical evidenc e of rec ord” and “explains why he dec lined to adopt Dr. Vaug hn’s [sic] opinion that plaintiff was totally disabled.” ( Plaintiff’s Br

. at App’x) Plaintiff filed object i o n s to the Mag istrate Judge’ s rec ommendation. The district cour t “re viewed the rec ord de

novo in li g h t o f th o s e o b je c ti o n s , ” an d “ a d o p t[ e d ] th e ma g is tr a te ju d g e ’ s report and

rec ommendation.” Id. The district co u rt g rante d Def endant’ s motion for summary judgme nt on April 28, 2006. On June 22, 2006, Pl aintiff filed a timely notice of a

ppeal. On appe al, Plaintiff argu es that the hy pothetical questions the AL J submitt ed to the vocational e x pert in the August 2, 2004 hearingdid not acc urate ly descr ibe Plaintiff’s abilities and limit ations. He c ontends that a c onflict exist s betwee n For rest’s testimony

and the Dic tio n ar y

of Occ upational Titles (“D OT”) . L ast, Plaintiff maintains that the AL J d i d n o t p ro perly weig h the

me dic a l op ini on

e vid e nc e in d e te rm ini ngPla int if f’ s r e sid ua l f un c tio nal capacity . F or

its pa rt , Def endant a rgues that the AL J ’s dec ision is s upported by substantial evidence in the rec ord. DI SCU SSIO N I. WHE THER

THE H YP OTHE TIC AL QU ESTI ON SUB M ITTE D TO THE VO CA TIO NA L EX P ER T A CC UR AT ELYDE SCRIBED P LA IN TIF F ’S AB ILI TIES AND LIMITATIONS Stan dard of Revie w Whe n r e vie wi ng

a fi nd ingthat Pla int if

f i s n ot d isa

ble d und e r t

he Soc ia l Se c urit y

Ac t, t his C o u rtco n s i d er s wh et h er

t h e d ec i s i o ni s s u

p p o rt edb y

s u b s t an t i al ev i d en ce an d

wh et h er t h e A LJNo. 06-5859

12 employ ed the pr oper le g al standar ds. Brain ar d v. Se c ’y of H e alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 889 F.2d 679, 68 1 ( 6th Cir . 1 98 9) ; W

illba nk s v . S e c ’y of Hea lth an d H

um an Se rv

s. , 8 47 F .2 d 3 01 , 3 03 (6 th Cir.1988). Substantial evidence is “such re levant evide nce a s a re asonable mind might acc ept as adequate to support a conc lusion.” Richardson v. Pe rales , 4 02 U.S

. 38 9, 40 1 ( 19 71 ); Howard v. Comm’r of Soc. Se c. , 276 F .3 d 235 , 237 -3 8 (6t h Ci r. 20 02 ); Buxton v. H

alter , 24 6 F .3 d 76 2, 77 2 ( 6th Cir. 2001). I n this case, the same sta ndard of revie w applies to all the c laims pending befor e the Court. Anal y sis T o b e c o n s i d er edd i s ab l edu n d er t h e S o ci al S ec u ri t y Ac t , a p er s o n m u s t b e “u n ab l e t o en gage in any substantia l g ainful ac tivity by rea son of any

medically

deter minable phy sical or menta l imp a ir me nt wh ic h c an be e xpe c te d to re su lt in de a th or wh ic h ha s la ste d or c an be e xpe c te d to la st fo r a c on tin uo us perio d of n ot l e ss t ha n tw e lve months .” 42 U. S.C. § 1 38 2c (a )( 3) (A ); se e als o Foster v. Halter , 279 F.3d 348, 353 ( 6th Cir. 2001). Under 42 U .S.C. § 1382c(a)( 3)(B ),

an indi vid

ua l sha ll b e de te rm ine d to be un de r a dis a bil ity on ly if his ph y sic a l or

me nta l im

pa ir me nt o r i mpa ir

me nts are of

su c h sev e ri ty that he is n ot o nly

un a ble to d o h is previ ou s w or k b ut c ann ot, consideringhis ag e, education, and work e x perie nce, e ng ag e in any other kind of substantial g ainful work which exis ts in th e n ational e c on omy , r e g ard le ss o f whe the r su ch wor k e xists in t

he imm e diate are a in wh i ch he lives, or whether a spec ific job vac ancy

exis ts for him, or whether

he would be hir ed if he applied for work. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c (a )( 3)(B ). “Plaintiff ha s the ultimate burden of establishing the exis tence of a disability .” Cas e

yv . S e c ’y of H e alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 ( 6th Cir. 1993). Lan ds aw v . S

e c ’y of H e alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 803 F.2d 211, 214 ( 6th Cir. 1986) (“The burden of providing a complete rec ord, def ined as e vidence complete a nd detailed e noug h to enable theNo. 06-5859

13 Secre tary to make a disability deter mination, rests wit h the claimant.”). This Court employ s a fivepr on g te st t o e va luate dis a bil ity c la ims : The c laimant must first show that she is n ot eng ag ed in substantial g a inf ul a c tiv ity . N e xt, th e c la ima nt mus t dem on str a te tha

t sh e ha s a “severe i m p airment.” A finding of “disable d” will be made at the third step if the cla imant can then de monstrate that her i m p ai rm ent meets the durationa l re q uirement a nd “mee ts or equals a

listed impairment.” If t h e impairment does not meet or equal a listed imp a ir me nt, the fo ur

th ste p r e qu ir e s th e c la ima nt t o p ro ve that sh e is i n c a p a b l e o f p e r f o r m i n g w o r k t h a t s h e h a s d o n e i n t h e p a s t

. F i n a l l y, if the cla imant’s impairment is so severe as to p re clude the perf ormanc e of pa st work, then other fac tors, i n cl u d i ng ag e, e d u c a t i o n , p a s tw o r

k e x p e r i e n c e , an d

r e s i d u a l f u n c t i o n a l c a

p a c i t y, must be considere d to determine if other work can be performed. The bur d e ns h if

ts to th e Co mm is s io n e r

a t t h is f if th s te p to e s ta

b li s hthe claimant’s a

bility to do other work. Foster , 2 79 F .3 d at 35 4 ( c itatio ns omi tte d) ; se e als o 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. I n th e ins ta

nt c a se , th e AL J expr e ssl y fo un d that Plai nti ff “ is una ble to p e rf or m any of his pa st

re le va nt w or k. ” (J.A . 2 6) I n li g ht o f t

his fi nd ing , “ [t]he burd e n s hif ts t o [D e fe nd ant] .

. . to e sta bli sh [P laintiff’s] ability

to do other work.” Foster , 2 79 F .3 d at 35 4; se e als o Davis v. Sec’ y of Health & Hu ma n S e rv s. , 9 15 F .2 d 1 86 , 1 89 (6 th C ir . 1 99 0) (“ Th e Se c re tary de te rm ine d th a t [pl a int if

f] c ou ld

no t r e tur n to his pa st r e le va

nt w or k, and that de te rm inatio n s hif

te d th e burd e n to th e S ecreta ry to show by substantial ev i d en ce that [pl aintiff] could perf orm work that e x ists in t he national economy .”). The AL J elicited vocational expert testimony at the August 2, 2004 hear ing to show that there is “a significa

nt number of jobs in the national e conomy that [P laintiff] could perfor m.” (De f. Br. at 16) When the AL J examined Forr est, he indicated that the hy pothetical individual has modera t el

y limited ability to interac t appropriately with ge nera l public, can understand and reme mber inst ructions, s ustain attention to c omp le te a ta sk , tol e rate c o- e mpl oy e e s, su pe rv iso rs in a

no n- pu bli cNo. 06-5859

14 s et t i n g, can adapt to cha ng es in routine wor

k setting. G iven that hy pothetical, could this individual do any of [ Plaintiff’s] past relevant w o r k ? (J.A . 3 65 -6 6) (e mph a sis a dd e d) . A ft e r t he AL J recite d th e hy

po the tic a l, F or

re st a sk e d th e AL J to clar ify whether the hy pothetical question indicate d “ mild restrictions on that last part? W

as it mild, I w an te d to ma k

e su re .” (J.A. 366) (empha sis a dded). Although the AL J had orig in al l y i n cl u ded

“ mo de ra te ly

limit ed ability ” in the hy

pothetical question, he expressly indicated to F orre st that the hy pothetical indivi d u al h as “mil d restric tions.” (J .A. 366) Af ter the de g ree of re striction was

c lari fi e d, F or

re st a ns we re d th e hy

po the tic a l qu e sti on . In th e denia l de c isi on , th e AL J spe c if ic a lly fo un d th a t Pla int if

f’ s abilities to maintain attention and conc entration for extended per iod, to complete a norma l workday and wor kwee k without interruptions fr o m p sy cholog ically

based sy mptoms and perfor

m at a consistent pace without a

n unrea sonable number and leng th of rest pe riods, and to interac t appropriately

wit h the g ener al public, ar e mo de ra te ly limited. (J .A. 22) (e mphasis added) . The hy pothetical re striction in the AL J ’s question to the vocational expert is not the same restric tion which the AL J ultimately found with respec t to Pl aintiff. Com pa re J .A. 22 with J.A. 36 6. Th e AL J con c lud e d th a t Pla int if f “ ha s th e re sid

ua l f un c tio na l capac ity

to perf orm a sig nificant rang e of lig ht work,” a nd as “[e]x amples of suc h jobs” the AL J listed “work

a s a tic ke t take r, de sk

c le rk and re c re a tio n a ide .” (J.A

. 26 ) T he job s th e AL J men tio ne d a re the same job s th a t F or

re st d isc us se d w he n th e AL J instru c te d h e r t o a ssume an indiv idu a l w ith“ mil d restric tions.” (J .A. 366) When F orre st testified about these jobs, F orre st “specif ically assumed that the lim itatio ns in [ ] wo rk -r e late d a re a s w e re on ly

‘m ild .’ ” (P la int if

f’ s B r. a t 9) Th e AL J er

re d inNo. 06-5859

15 relying on the se jobs beca use they wer e dis cussed ex clusively in the contex t of mild restrictions, and not the moderate re strictions which the AL J ultimately found in Plaintiff. Th e re is a su bs tanti a l and

me anin g fu l di sti nc tio n b e tw e e n mi ld a nd mod e ra te re str ic tio ns .

“ I f one ha s only

‘ m i l d ’ l i m i t a t i o n s . . . t h e p e r s o nc anw o r k , b u t‘ m o d e r a t e ’ l i m i t a t i o n s . . . w o u ld ke e p a p e r s o n f

r o m p e r f o r mi n g [t ic k e t ta

k e r , d e s k c le r

k an d r e c r e a ti o n a id e w o r k ] for 8 hours.” (Plaintiff’s B r. at 10). T he “f unctional ca

pacity assessment” in the r ecor d appea rs to confirm that the re strictions in the A L J ’s hy pothetical should ha

ve bee n moderate bec ause it discusses Plaintiff’s l i m itations in t he conte x t of mo de ra te , r e c u r r e n t d e p r e s s io n . ( J. A

. 2 3 3 ) ( c a p it a li zati o no mi tt ed). Simi larl y , o the r m e nta l he a lthe va lu ati on s in the re c or d, su c h a s D r. Plavin ’s e xami natio n r e su lts , (J.A. 229), and a “ medical a ssessment of ability to do work-r elated a ctivities” sug g es t that the Plaintiff’s limit ations are moderate and not mild. (J .A. 357) (c apitalization omi tted). This Court has found that “[s] ubstantial evidenc e may be produce d throug h relianc e on the testimony of a voc ational expert in response t o a ‘hy pothetical’ que stion, but only ‘if the question

ac c urate ly

po rtray s [p lai nti ff’ s] ind iv idu al ph y sic al a nd me nta l im

pa irm e nts .’” Varley , 820 F.2d at 7 7 9 (q u o t i n g Pode dwo rn yv . H arris , 7 45 F .2 d 2 10 , 2 18 (3 d Ci r. 19 84 )) (a lte ra tio n in or ig ina l) (empha sis added). “ Whil e the AL J may proff er a varie ty of assumpt ions to the expert, the vocational expert’s testimony

conce rning a cla imant’s ability to perfor m alternative employ

ment may only be considere d for pur

poses of de termining disability if the question acc urate ly portray s the claimant’s individual phy sical and me ntal impairments.” Podedworny , 7 45 F .2 d at 21 8; se e als o Tennant v. Schweike r , 682 F.2d 707, 711 (8th Cir.1982) (“This Court has re peate dly war ned that hy

potheticalNo. 06-5859

16 questions posed to vocational e x perts . . . should prec isely set out the claimant’ s particular phy sical and mental impairme nts.”). I n this case, “ we c annot assume that the vocational expert would have answe red in a similar

manner had the AL J instructed [her]” proper ly

. Pendley v. He ckle r , 767 F.2d 1561, 1563 ( 11th Cir. 19 85 ) (c on c lud ing that De fe nd ant “ fa ile d to me e t its burd e n of sh ow ing that the a pp ell ant cou ld perf orm other g ainful employ ment in the economy” with substantial evidenc e.). The factual

a ssumpt ion s und e rl yingthe AL J’s h y po the tic a l qu e sti on

re qu ir e d th e vo c a tio na l ex pe rt to a ssume that Pla int if

f’ s r e str ic tio ns we re m il d. “Th e hy po the tic a l qu e sti on

[ ] fa ils to d e sc ri be a c c ur a te ly [Pla int if f’ s] phy sic a l and

me nta l im

pa ir me nts ; a de fe c t w hic h .

. . is fata l to the [voc a tio na l e xpe rt ’s ] testimony and the AL J ’s re liance upon it.” Howard v. Comm’r of Soc. Se c. , 2 76 F .3 d 2 35 , 2 41 (6 th Cir. 2002). I f the hy

pothetical question does not acc urate ly portray Plaintiff’s phy sical and me ntal state, the voc ational expert’s testimony in response to the hy

pothetical question may

not s erve as substantial evidence in support o f the AL J ’s finding that Plaintiff could perf orm other wor

k. The AL J failed to ensure that the hy pothetical questions posed to the voc ational expert ade quately and

acc urate ly

descr ibe Def

endant’ s limi tations. II. WHE THER

A C ON F LIC T EX ISTS B ETW EEN THE T ESTI M ON Y O F THE VO CA TIO NA L EX P ER T A ND THE D OT Anal y sis

“ A So c ia l Se c ur ity

Rul ing[“SS R” ] se ts f

or th t he a c tio ns re qu ir e d of an AL J w he n th e re is

an a p p ar e n t c o n f

li c t b e tw e e n th e te s ti mo n y o f th e v o c a ti o n a l e xp e rt an d th e D O T.” Martin v. Comm’r of Soc. Se c. , 1 70 F . App ’x 36 9, 37 4 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 6) (u

np ub lis he d c a se ). I n p e rt ine nt p art , the applica

ble SSR provides thatNo. 06-5859

17 [o] ccupational evidence provided by a [vocational expert] or [vocational specialist] gen erally should be consistent with the o c c u p a ti o n a l in f

o r mati o n s u

p p li e d b y th e D O T

. Wh e n th e re is an appar ent unre solved conflict be tween [vocational ex pert] or [voc a tio na l sp e c ia lis t] e vid e nc e and the DO T, the a dju dic a tor mus t elicit a re asonable explanation for the conf l i ct before r ely

ing on the [voc a tio na l e xpe rt ] or

[voc a tio nal sp e c ia lis t] e vid e nc e to s up po rt a deter mination or decision about whe ther the c laimant is disabled. SSR 0 0- 4p , 2 00 0 WL

18 98 70 4, a t *2 (S SA D e c . 4 , 2 00 0). S SR ho ldi ng s “ are bin din g on a ll components of the Socia l Security Administration. The se ruling s repr esent pre cede nt final opinions and orde rs and state ments of policy and interp re t ati ons that we have adopte d.” 20 C.F.R. § 402.35(b)( 1). Court s are div ide d a s to wh e the r t he fa ilure to i nq

uir e int o DO T in con sis te nc ie s e nti tle s a Plaintiff to relief. In Ste war d v . B ar nh ar t , th e Ni nth

Cir c uit fo un d th a t a

pla intiff wa s e nti tle d to relief beca use all t hree jobs the ex pert testified that plaintiff could per form we re in c onflict with the DOT. 44 F

. App’x 151, 152 (9th Cir. 2002) (unpublished ca se). I n Teverbaugh v . Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 258 F. Supp. 2d 702 (E.D. Mic h. 2003), a case wher e “[ i] t [was] undisputed that the AL J failed to q ue sti on the [voc a tio na l e xpe rt ] re g ard ingwh e the r t he job s sh e ide nti fi e d a s b e ingc on sis te nt w ith Plaintiff’s residual functional capa city [ ] conflicte d with the DOT,” id. at 705, the cour t found that AL J “fa iled to ensure the re was no conflict” and held that the “AL J ’s failure to car ry its burden at this step is reversible e rror ,” id. at 706. Other courts have found that claimants shoul d not be per mitted to scan the re cord f or implied or unexplained c onflicts betwee n the specific testimony of an expert witness and the voluminous provisions of t he DOT, and then pr esent that conflict a s reve rsible er ro r, when the c onflict was not dee med sufficie nt to merit adver sarial de velopment in the administrative hear ing. A dopting a

middle gr ound approa ch, in whi ch n either theNo. 06-5859

18 DO T n o r t h e v o ca t i o n al ex p er tt es t i m o n y i s p er s e c o n t ro l l i n g, permits a more straig htforwa rd appr oach. Carey v. A pfel , 2 30 F .3 d 1 31 , 1 46 -4 7 ( 5th Cir . 2 00 0) ; se e als o B oo ne v . B ar nh ar t , 353 F.3d 203, 206 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ Wh il e w e d o n o t a d o p t a g e n e r a l r u le th a t a nu n e xp la in e d

c o n f lict betwee n a [vocational expert’s] t estimony and the DOT necessa rily require s reve rsal, we do conclude that the [v o c a t i o n a l e xp e rt ’ s ] t e s t i m o n y i nt h i s c a s e i s n o ts u

b s t an t i a l e v i d e n c e . ” ); J

us tin v . M as sa na ri , 20 F . App ’x 15 8, 16 0 ( 4th

Cir . 2 00 1) (u

np ub lis he d c a se ) ( fi nd ingthat an A L J is on ly re qu ir ed “to

a dd re ss e vid e nt dis c re pa

nc ie s b e tw e e n a

vo c a tio na l e xpe rt ’s te sti mony and the [DO T]” ); Brown v. Ba rn ha rt , 408 F. Supp. 2d 28, 35 ( D.D.C. 2006) (“ Even if SSR 00-4p places a n aff irmative duty

on the judg e, such a procedura l require ment would not nece ssarily bestow upon a pla intiff the rig ht of automatic re mand wher e that duty was unmet.” ). I n thi s c a se , “ [a] re vie w o f t he c oll oq uy be tw e e n th e AL J and

the [voc a tio na l e xpe rt ] re fl e c ts that the AL J did not ask t he [ vocational ex pert] if the jobs she identified that plaintiff c ould perfor m

wer e consistently

classified in the D OT.” ( Plaintiff’s Br

. at App’x). Never theless, the AL J found that “ [t ]h e v o c a ti o n a l e xp e rt’ s r e s p o n s e s to qu e s ti o n s r e g ar d in g v o c a ti o n a l is s u e s ar e f o u n d to be consistent with information contained in the [ DOT].” (J.A. 25 n.2) The mag istrate judg e found that since “ there was no c onflict for the AL J to resolve betwee n the [vocational expert’s] testim ony and the DOT,” the fa ilure to ask F orre st about DOT cla s s i fi ca tions constitut es a “ harmless e rror .” (Plaintiff’s B r. at App’ x ) The district c ourt adopted the mag istrate judg e’s f indings. Pla int if f c on te nd s th a t the fa ilure to e xami ne the vo c a tio na l e xpe rt is no t ha rm le ss b e c a

us e there are inconsistencies be tween the testimony and the DOT. P laintiff maintains that “a ll the jobs the vo c a tio na l e xpe rt

lis te d a re e lim inate d b y be ing se mi- sk ill e d or by re qu ir ingsig nif

ic ant p ub licNo. 06-5859

19 c on ta c t.” (P la int if

f’ s B r. a t 16 ) F or

its pa rt , D e fe nd ant a

rgue s th a t th e AL J did n ot l imi t Pla int if f t o

un sk ill e d jo bs or to pos iti on s with lim ite d pub lic c on ta c t. De fe nd ant’ s ar g ume nt is w ith out me ri t. The AL J specific ally found that Plaintiff “ has no transfe rable skills from any past rele vant work.” (J.A. 24) A desk cler k job ha s a “spe cific voc ational pre paration” (“SVP”) le vel of thre e. (De f. B r. at App’x ) (capitalization omitted). “[S] emi-skilled work c orre sponds to an SVP of 3-4.” SSR00-4p, 2000 WL1898704, at *3 (De c. 4, 2000). “[ Residual functional c apac ity ] alone never establishes the c apability

for skilled or semiskilled wor k. Ability to pe rfor

m skilled or semiskilled

wo rk de pe nd s o n th e pr e se nc e of a c qu ir e d s kil ls whic h ma y be tr ans fe rr e d to su c h w or k f ro m pa st job experience above the unskilled level or the pr esenc e of r ece ntly completed e ducation which allows for dire ct entry

into skil led or semiskilled work.” SSR 83-10, 1983 WL 31251, at *3 (1983). “Unde r [SS A] rulings and r egulations , [P la in ti f f ] m u s t p o s s e s s tra

n s fer able skills from pre vious work in order to pe rfor m SVP-3 jobs,” such as a de sk clerk position. Ste war d , 44 F. App’ x at 152.

“ [Pla int if f] w a s n ot c a

pa ble of perf orm in g the [de sk

c le rk ] job [ ] as a

matte r o f S SA r e g ulatio ns , even if persua sive evidenc e supported the [vocational expert’s] deviation from the skill levels in the [DOT] .” Id. There fore, o f t h e thre e occ upations which F orre st mentioned in her testimony , an inconsistency

with the DOT c lear ly

exis ts with respec t to at least one job, the desk cle rk position. Whether or n o t i n co n sistencies exist i s not disposi tive in this case bec ause the vocational expert’s testimony

was unre liable. Fo rr est identified all positions under the impression that the AL J ’s hy pothetical questions i n volved an individual with “mild restrictions.” ( J .A. 366) The positions i dentified by For rest, and adopted by

the AL J , fail to meet Plaintiff’s phy sical re strictions and mental he alth limit ati o n s . The positions are simply not reliable be cause they are for “ mild”No. 06-5859

20 re str ic tio ns , a

nd no t “ mode rate ” lim itatio ns a s th e AL J ultim a te ly fo un d, re g ard le ss o f t

he ir consistency or conflict with the DOT. See, e .g. , Howard v

. Comm’r of Soc . Sec. , 276 F.3d 235, 241 (6th Cir. 2002) (finding t h at i f t h e hy pothetical question does not ac curately portray Plaintiff’s phy sical and me ntal state, the voc ational expert’s testimony in response to the hy pothetical question may not s er v e as subs tantial evidenc e in support of the A L J ’s finding that plaintiff could per form oth e r w or k) ; Ste war

d , 4 4 F . App ’x at 15 2; Teverbaugh , 258 F. Supp. 2d at 705-06. The AL J failed to ensure that all jobs enumerate d by the vocational expert were consistent with the DOT. III . WHE THER

THE A DM IN ISTR

AT IV E LA W JU DG E P RO P ERLY WEI G HED THE M ED IC AL OP IN ION EV ID EN CE Anal y sis Plaintiff c ontends that the AL J did not g ive appropr iate weig ht to the opinions of his treating

o rt h o p e d i c s u r g e o n , D r . V a u g h an , w h o av e r s t h a tP l a i n t i f f i s d i s a b l e d

. P l a i n t i f

f ar g u e s t h a tt h e A LJ

e rr e d “ wh e n he g ave the mos t we ig ht to Dr

. She ri da n wh o did on ly a on e -t ime e xam . . . for his ‘re cog nized conditions’ related to his worke rs’ c ompensation claim.” ( Plaintiff’s Br . at 17) Ac c or din g to S SA r e g ulatio ns ,
weg iv e m o r e we ig

h t to o p in io n s fr o m y o u r

tr e a ti n g s o u r ces , since the se so ur c e s a

re lik e ly to b e the me dic a l pr of

e ssi on a ls m os t a

ble to pr ov ide a de ta ile d, lon g itu d i n a l p i c t u r e o f y ou r m e dic a l im

pa ir me nt( s) and may bring a unique pe rs p ec t i ve to the medica l evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective me dical finding s alone or f rom repor ts of individual ex aminations, such as c onsu lt a ti v e e xa mi nations or br ie f h os pit a lizatio ns . 20 C.F .R. § 4 04 .1 52 7( d) (2 ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ; se e als o W alk e r v . Se c ’y of

He alt h an d H um an Se rv

s. , 98 0 F .2 d 1 06 6, 10 70 (6 th C ir . 1 99 2) (“ Th e tr e a tin g ph y sic ian h a s had a g re a te r o pp or

tun ity to examine and o b s er v e the patient. Furthe r, as a result of his duty

to cure the patient, the tre atingNo. 06-5859

21 ph y sic ian is g e ne ra lly

mor e fa mil iar w iththe patie nt’ s c o n d i t i o n t h a n a r e o t h e r ph y sic ians .” ); Schisler v. He ck ler , 787 F.2d 76, 85 ( 2d Cir.1986) (explaining that “ a tre ating phy sician’s opinion on the subject of medic al disability is b i n d i n g o n the fa ctfinder unless contra dicted by

substantial evidenc e.”) . The SSA has indicated that

[a] lthough opinions from other acc eptable me dical sourc es may be entitled to gr eat we ight, and may even be entitled to more we ight than a tre ating source ’s opinion in appropriate circ umstances, o p inions fro m s ou rc es o the r th an tre ati ng so ur ces c an ne v e r b e e nti tle d to “controlli ng weight.” SSR96-2p, 1996 WL374188, at *2 (SSA J uly 2, 1996) (e mphasis added) . “The medical opinion of the tre ating phy sician is to be given substantial defe renc e-a nd, if that opinion is not contradicted, complete de fer ence must be g iven.” W alker , 980 F.2d at 1070. “When [t he AL J ] do[es] not g ive the tr e a tin g so ur c e’s opini on c on tr oll ingwe ig ht, [the AL J] app l[ie s] [va ri ou s] f a c tor s . . in deter mining the we ight to g ive the opinion,” includingthe leng th, freque ncy , nature and ex tent of the tr e a tme nt r e latio ns hip ; e vid e nc e in s up po rt of the op ini on ; c on sisten cy of the op ini on wi th evidenc e in the re cord; phy sician’s spec ialization; and other fac tors broug ht to the AL J ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The AL J “will alway s g ive g ood rea sons in [ the] noti ce of deter mination or dec ision for the we ight . . . g ive[n] [t o] y o u r t re at i ng source ’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)( 2)

. “[T] he ultimate dec ision of disa bility rests with the [AL J ].” W alker , 980 F.2d at 1070. The AL J “is not bound by treating phy sicians’ opinions, espec ially when ther e is substantial medical evidence to the contrary .” Cut lip v . S e c ’y of H e alt h a nd Hu ma n S e rv s. , 25 F.3d 284, 287 (6th Cir. 1994). I n the instant case , the AL J expressly stated:No. 06-5859

22 The unde rsig ned will note here that he has considere d Dr. Va ug hn’s [si c] opinion t hat the claimant is disabled. Even thoug h Dr. Va ug hn [si c] i s a t reating sour ce, his opinion that the cla imant is “disabled” is an opinion on an issue that is reser ved to the Commi s s i o n er and, thu s , is n e v e r

e n ti tl e d to c o n tr o ll in gw e igh t o r

s p e c ia l s ign if

ic ance . Ne ve rt he le ss, the [AL J] ma

y no t ig no re su c h an op ini on . . . . In th is case , the under signe d finds that Dr. Va ug hn’s [sic] opinion of disability and his specif

ic assessme n ts of the claimant’ s residual fu nc tio na l c a

pa c ity are no t w e ll- su

pp or te d b y me dic a lly

a c c e pta ble c lin ical an d l abo rat ory

di agnos ti c te chn iq ues anda reinc on sis te nt w ith t h e o t h er s u b s t an t i al ev i d en ce i n t h e re co rd , i n cl u d i n g t h e b ro adra n ge of ac tiviti es of da ily

living in which is able to eng ag e. The ref ore, the un de rs ig ne d c on c lud e s th a t D r. Va ug hn ’s [sic ] op ini on

of dis a bil ity cannot be adopted. (J.A. 22-23) The AL J ’s decision appea rs to se t f orth an incor

rec t leg al standar d with respec t to the weight afforde d to a treating phy sician’s opinion. Admittedly , when the A L J indicated that Dr

. Vaug han’s opinion “ is n e v e r e nti tled to controlling w eig ht or specia l significa nce,” he may

have be en addre ssing Dr .Vaug han’s opinion conc erningthe merits of P laintiff’s disability claims and not Dr. Vaug han’s medic al assessment. (J.A. 22-23) Howeve r, a c lear distinction between Dr . Vaug han’s medical a nd non-medica l statements is not set f o rt h i n t he AL J ’s dec ision. This i s an important distinction because “ reg

ulations differe ntiate b et we en p h y s i ci an o p i n i o n s co n ce rn i n g wh at a c l ai m ant

c an s till do and

the c la ima

nt’ s p hy sic a l and

me nta l r e str ic tio ns , w hic h th e Com mis sio ne r w ill consider, a

nd a phy sician’s stateme nts such as ‘a claimant is disable d’ or ‘ unable to wor k,’ which

are not me dical opinions, but opinions on issues reser ved to the Commissi oner.” (De f. B r. at 26 n.6) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a) , (b), and (e) ). Since the de cision is ambiguous in that re g ard, the AL J failed to prope rly

set forth the le g al standar d with r espec t to the weig ht affor ded to a tre ating phy sician’s opinion.No. 06-5859

23 Even if the A L J used the c orre ct leg al standar d, the AL J ’s decision to discount Dr. Vaug han’s opinion is not supported by substantial e vidence in the rec ord. I n this c ase, the AL J held that “Dr

. Sheridan’s a ssessment best comports with the totality of the e vid en ce . ” (J

. A. 23) How ever , the

rec ord indicate s that Dr. Sherida n “did only

a one- time exam for [ P l ai n t i ff]” in conne ction with a “wor kers’ compensation claim.” (Plaintiff’s Br. at 17) Dr. S herida n’s assessment was based on a limit ed and disc rete worke rs’ c ompensation eva lu a ti o n which wa s simply

not exhausti ve or a ccur ate. For example, the rec ord indicate s that Dr. Sherida n diag nosed Plaintiff with m ax imum medical improvement in 2003, but later medic al assessments indicate otherw ise. Dr. Va ug han has tre ated and per formed thr ee sur g erie s on Plainti ff since 1996. I n the cour se of h i s treatment and examination, he has found that Plaintiff

is [ not] capa

ble of lifting more than 5 pounds. He can do littl e to no bending or twisting of his ne ck or lowe r bac k. He is unable to sit for more than 5- 7 minutes at a time, or g reater than 1 hour per day . He is unable t o stand or wa lk more than 5-7 minutes at a time, and no mor e tha n 1 ho ur pe r day . He fr e qu e ntl y ha s to lie do wn to r e lie ve his pain. (J.A. 352) The AL J did not pr ovide any explanation for why he found that Dr. Va

ug han’s medic al op ini on s w e re no t su

pp or te d b y c lin ic a l and lab orat or

y dia g no sti c te c hn iqu e s. Th e AL J fa ile d to point to specific evide nce in the r ecor d which undermines Dr. Vaug han’s medic al opinions. The AL J failed to identify “substantial m edica l evidenc e to the contr ary .” Cut lip , 2 5 F .3 d at 28 7. I n th is

case , the AL J inconsistently charac terized Plaintiff’s restric tions as “mild” or “mode rate ,” misconstrued the voc ational expert’s testimony , and did not ensure that the vocational expert’s te sti mony wa s con sis te nt wit h the DO T. Al tho ug h the se are se pa ra te iss ue s, the se oc c ur

re nc e s r a ise serious questions about the AL J ’s assessment of the medical e vidence . There fore , we f ind that theNo. 06-5859

24 AL J ’s dec ision to di scount Dr. Va ug han’s opinion is not supported by subs t an t i al evidenc e in the

rec ord. CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, we R E V E R SE t he district cour t’s judgme nt and REMAND to the dis tr ic t c ourt wi th ins tr uc tio ns to r e mand

to t he AL J for

fu rt he r p ro c e e din g s c on sis te nt w iththi s opinion.No. 06-5859

25 RONALD LEE GILMA N, Circ uit Jud ge, concurr ing. Ic on c ur in t he jud g me nt, but w ri te

se pa rate ly to hig hli g ht wh a t I se e a s the pr ima ry re a so n to re ve rs e the de c isi on of the dis tr ic t c ourt

. The ke y issue in this case is the AL J ’s misstatement in clarify ing his hy pothetical questions to the vocational e x pert. B ut f

or the AL J ’s er

ror in telling the vocational expert that L anca ster’s menta l impairments w ere “mild,” when in f act the hy pothetical questions cha

rac terized them as “mode rate ,” Iwo uld be inc lin e d to af

fi rm the jud g me nt of the dis tr ic t c ourt . T he AL J’s o pin ion wa s o the rw ise tho ro ug h a

nd su pp orted by

su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e . B e c a us e L anc a ste r’ s me nta l li mit a tio ns are so important to the deter

mination of his ability

to work, howe ver, I

am per suaded by

the lead opinion that a re mand for f

urther pr ocee dings is appr opriate.