UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRUCE E. PRITCHETT,

Plaintiff

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security, 

Defendant

CIVIL ACTION

No. 05-3066

ORDER

AND NOW, this 25 day of September, 2008, after review of the Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge, for the

reasons provided in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED as supplemented

by the accompanying Memorandum;

2. Defendant’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.

/s/ Louis H. Pollak

Pollak, J.

Case 2:05-cv-03066-LP Document 27 Filed 09/29/08 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRUCE E. PRITCHETT,

Plaintiff

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security, 

Defendant

CIVIL ACTION

No. 05-3066

JUDGMENT

AND NOW, this 25 day of September, 2008, in accordance with Kadleski v.

Sullivan, 30 F.3d 399 (3d Cir. 1994), and Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

it is hereby ORDERED that JUDGMENT is entered AFFIRMING the final decision of

the Commissioner of Social Security, consistent with United States Magistrate Judge

David R. Strawbridge’s Report and Recommendation, as supplemented by my

Memorandum and Order of today approving and adopting the Report and

Recommendation.

/s/ Louis H. Pollak

_________________ Pollak, J.

Case 2:05-cv-03066-LP Document 27 Filed 09/29/08 Page 2 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRUCE E. PRITCHETT,

Plaintiff

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security, 

Defendant

CIVIL ACTION

No. 05-3066

MEMORANDUM

September 25 2008,

On April 9, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge filed a

Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” Doc. No. 22), affirming the decision of the

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in this social security appeal. On April 29, 2008,

petitioner Bruce E. Pritchett filed objections to the R&R (Doc. No. 23). The

Commissioner did not respond to those objections. Upon consideration of the record of

the proceedings before the ALJ, the R&R, and claimant’s objections to the R&R, and

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this court approves and adopts Magistrate Judge

Strawbridge’s Report and Recommendation upholding the ALJ’s decision.

The relevant facts in this case are set out in Magistrate Judge Strawbridge’s R&R. 

Case 2:05-cv-03066-LP Document 27 Filed 09/29/08 Page 3 of 6
The crux of plaintiff’s objections is that the ALJ gave insufficient weight to statements

made by plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Greene. Plaintiff urges that “Social Security

Regulations demand that the opinion of a treating physician,” in this case Dr. Greene, “is

entitled to greater weight” than those of the non-treating physicians. Pl. Obj. at 4, 6-7. 

As a general matter, plaintiff is correct that federal regulations, as interpreted by

the Third Circuit, do favor the opinions of treating physicians. In this Circuit, “the

medical judgment of a treating physician can be rejected only on the basis of

contradictory medical evidence.” Frankenfield v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 405, 408 (3d Cir.

1988). 

However, when there is “conflicting and internally contradictory evidence,” the

opinion of a treating physician is not necessarily controlling. Jones v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d

125, 129 (3d Cir. 1991). The ALJ, in refusing to credit the testimony of a treating

physician, must base his decision to do so on “objective medical evidence” and not

“solely on his own ‘amorphous impressions, gleaned from the record and from his

evaluation of [the claimant’s] credibility.’” Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.2d 310, 318 (3d Cir.

2000) (citations omitted). Magistrate Judge Strawbridge’s R&R demonstrates that the

ALJ in this matter did base his decision to accord less weight to parts of Dr. Greene’s

opinions on conflicting and contradictory evidence, including medical reports by other

doctors as well as by Dr. Greene himself.

One issue, however, requires additional commentary from this court. Plaintiff

urges that, at the very least, the ALJ should have recontacted plaintiff’s treating physician

Case 2:05-cv-03066-LP Document 27 Filed 09/29/08 Page 4 of 6
After analyzing this issue, Johnson directed the reader to see the standard 1

announced in Thomas. 

for clarification regarding the deterioration of plaintiff’s health. 20 C.F.R. §

416.912(e)(1) states, in pertinent part:

we will seek additional evidence or clarification from your medical source

when the report from your medical source contains a conflict or ambiguity that

must be resolved, the report does not contain all the necessary information, or

does not appear to be based on medically acceptable clinical and laboratory

diagnostic techniques.

At first blush, therefore, plaintiff’s case would seem to require the ALJ to have recontacted

Dr. Greene to resolve any ambiguities regarding the progress of plaintiff’s condition.

Plaintiff is correct that Magistrate Judge Strawbridge, writing on April 9, 2008,

cites no binding circuit authority regarding the governing standard on this issue. Instead,

the Magistrate Judge points to a number of district court decisions applying the standard

announced by the Ninth Circuit in Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th Cir. 2002)

(“[T]he requirement for additional information is triggered only when the evidence from

the treating medical source is inadequate to make a determination as to the claimant’s

disability.”). 

However, the Third Circuit, on April 22, 2008, cited with approval from Thomas

in a case holding that an ALJ did not need to recontact a treating physician to resolve

ambiguities regarding that doctor’s comments. Although our Circuit’s citation to Thomas

was not strictly a holding, it does suggest that the Third Circuit was applying the Thomas

standard. Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 529 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008). 1

Case 2:05-cv-03066-LP Document 27 Filed 09/29/08 Page 5 of 6
In Johnson, the court noted the “important prerequisite” that “the language in Section

416.912(e)(1) is preceded by the following qualification: recontact will proceed if ‘the

evidence we receive from your treating physician or psychologist or other medical source

is inadequate for us to determine whether you are disabled.’” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. §

416.912(e)). Accordingly, because the ALJ was able to determine that Mr. Pritchett is not

disabled using the evidence on record, including the opinions of Dr. Greene, he was not

required to recontact Dr. Greene.

For the above-stated reasons, the court affirms and adopts the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Strawbridge. An appropriate order and judgment

follow.

/s/ Louis H. Pollak

Pollak, J.

Case 2:05-cv-03066-LP Document 27 Filed 09/29/08 Page 6 of 6