Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60901
VA N ESSAM Q U AL LS P l a i n tiff - A p p ell a n t v. M I CHAEL J AS TR UE, COM M I S S I ONER OF S OCIAL S ECURI TY D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o rt he N o r t he r n Di s t r i c to f M i s s i s s i ppi U SD C N o. 1: 05- C V

- 242

B ef ore K IN G , H IG G IN B O T H A M , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * Vane s s a M
. Q uall s a ppe al s t he di st ri ctc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n a f f i r m i ng t he A d m in is tr a tiv e L a w J u d g e ’ s d e te r m in a tio n th a t s h e is n o t d is a b le da n dis t he r e f o r e i ne l i gibl e f

o rSo c i alSe c ur i t y di s ab i l i t y be ne f i t s . Fo rt he f

o l l o w i ng r e a s o n s , w e a f

f i r m. F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS A . P rocedu ralH i st ory United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60901

2 V anes saM
. Q ual l s ( “ Q ual l s” ) f i l ed an appli c at i on f

ordi sa bi l i t y o n Jul y 19, 200 1, al l egi n g a dis abili t y on setdate of D ecem ber 15, 2 0 0 0 . S h e represented t h at s h e w as no l on ger abl e t o w ork d u e t o Sj ogren’ s Syn drom e, hea da ches,
a r th r itis , p a in in h e rn e c ka n dlo w e rb a c k , a n dth e p la c e m e n t o f m e ta l ro d s in h e rfe mu rb o n e s . F iv e d o c t o r s t r e a t e dQu a l l s fo rv a r y i n gp e r i o d s o f t i me . Tw o o t he r s r e vi e w e d he rc as e o n a c o ns ul t at ive ba s i s . Thi s ap pe al c e nt e r s ar o und t he d iffe r e n t d ia g n o s tic a s s e s s m e n ts o f th e s e d o c to r s . Q u a l l s’ s d i sa b ility a p p l i ca ti on w a s d en i ed bythe S ocial Se cu ri ty A dm i ni st r at i on’ s ( “ SS A” )

. Sh e so ught r ec ons i der at i on and herappl i c at i on w as agai n deni ed. Subse quent l y, Q ual l s appl i ed f or r evi ew f

r om an A dm i ni st r at ive L a w J u d g e (“A L J ”) w h o d e te r m in e dth a t s h e w a s n o t d is a b le d
. T h e A p p e a ls Counc i lde ni e d he rr e que s tf o rr e vi e w . Qual l s t hen f i l ed sui ta ga i ns tt he C om m i ssi on er of

t h e SS A(“ C om m i ssi on er” ) i n federalcou rtseeki n g t o overt u rn t he A LJ’ s di sabi l i t y det er m i nat i on. A m ong t he t w elve poi nt s of er r orr ai se d by Q u al l s— al lof

w h i ch w ere f

ou n d to b e w i t h ou tm eri t

— t h e di st ri ctcourt de t e r m i ne d t h att he ALJ di d no te r ri n de c l i ni ng t o g ive Q uall s ’ s t r e at i ng phy s i c i an’ s o pi ni o n co nt r o l l i ng w e i ghta nd c o m m i t t e d ha r m l e s s e r r o ri n s t at i ng t hats ur ge r y hade l i m i nat e d a defec ti n he rb ac k. Qual l s t i m e l y ap pe al e d,
r a is in gth e s e tw o g r o u n d s o f e r r o r . B . M ed i cal H i st ory W h i l e Q u al l s c l ai m ed a d i sabi l i t y on setdate of D ecem ber 200 0, her rel evan tm edi calhi st ory began pri or t o this d ate an d i n volvedseven p h ysi ci an s. P ri or to 2 0 0 0 , D r. D w ig h t Joh n son (“Jo h n son ”) pr ov i d ed treatm en t t o Qu a l l s . I n 1 9 8 8 , s h e wa s i n v o lv e d i n a c a r a c c i d e n t
. He r i nj u r i e s i n c l u d e dt wo broken fem u rs w h i ch requ i red surgery t o repai r and rods w ere i n st al l ed i n her l e gs . Q uall s c o m pl ai ne d o f pa i n f r o m t he a c c i de nt , pa r t i c ul ar l y i n he rt hi ghs a nd l ow erbac k. Sh e w as i n a s ec ond c arac c i denti n t he 1990s
. I n 1994, a l es i on w as r em oved from h erl i p. The pat hol ogyr epo r tnot ed f i ndi ngs c ons i st entw i t h anN o. 08- 60901

3 e arly o rm il d i n volvem en tw i t h Sj ogren’ s Syn drom e. Q u al l s w as nev er di agn osed
w i th Sj og ren ’ s S yn d rom e a n ddidn ot rece ive treatm en t f or it
. D r . Pat r i c k Tuc ke r(“ Tuc ke r” ) t r e at e d Qual l s b e t w e e n J une 2 00 0 and N ovem ber 200 1. D u ri n g h er vi si t s, she com pl ai n ed of v ert i go, hea da che, an d l eg p a i n . D r. T u ck er p resc rib ed m u scle rel a xe rs a n dpa i n pil l s, referringQ u a l l s to D r . Vi c t o rG r ay(“ G r ay” ) f o rhe rl e g pa i n. D r. G ray exam i n ed Q u a ll s an d p rovi ded care f rom M arch to N ovem ber 2001. H i s m edi c alnot es i ndi c at e t hatQ ual l s c om pl ai ned of bac k pai n. D r . G r ay pe r f o r m e d av ar i e t y o f

x - ra ys a nd M RI ’ s o f Q uall s ’ s l um ba rs pi ne . H e f o und a m ildce n tr a l d is cp r o tr u s io n a n do r d e r e de p id u r a l p a in inje c tio n s . Q u a lls
c o nt i nue d t o r e po r tb ac k p ai n t hr o ugh o utt hi s per i o d butD r . G r ayf o und t hats he
w as r e s t i ng “ f

i ne ” w i t h m e di c at i o n. In A u g u st 2 0 0 1 , Q u a ll s b e g a n tre a tm e n t u n d e r D r. K e n S ta g g s (“S ta g g s”). Q u a lls re m a in e du n d e rh is ca r e u n til D e c e m b e r2 0 0 1
. D u r in gth is p e r io d , Q u a lls report ed conti n u ed ba ck pa i n an d D r . St ag gsordered f u rt h er epi du rali nj ect i on s. T h e p a i n n on eth eless con ti n u ed
. In D ece m b er 2 0 0 1 , du ri n g h er last visi t w i th D r. Staggs, Q u al l s w as i n f orm ed that t h e ph ysi ci an ha d f ou n d a p ost eri or annul art e ari n he rs pi ne a nd s ugg e s t e d al um ba rs upp o r to r t ho t i c . The f ol l ow i n g m on t h , Q u al l s u n derw en ta n a n n u l opl asty to repai r the an n u l ar t ear. S u rgery w as not ef

fect ive. U n d e rth e re c o m m e n d a tio n o f h e ra tt o r n e y , inN o v e m b e r2 0 0 1 , Q u a lls
v is ite dD r . C a r l W e lc h (“W e lc h ”). S h e r e p o r te dle ga n db a c kp a in , a tt r ib u tin git to th e 1 9 8 8 ca ra c c id e n t. D r . W e lc h c o m p le te daM e d ic a l S o u r c e S ta te m e n t, a
r e s i dua lf

unc t i o nali t y as s e s s m e ntw hi c h s e t s f o r t h, i n t he phy s i c i an’ s o pi ni o n, t h e ph ysi call i m i t ati on s of a Soci alSecu ri t yb e n e f i tapp l i can t
. D r. W el ch
as s e r t e d thatQ uall s suf fered l i m i t ati on s i n com pa t ibl e w i t h even seden t ary w ork
o n af ul l

- t i m e b as i s . Qual l s di d no tr e c e ive t r e at m e ntf r o m D r . W e l c h no rdi d s he
c o n tin u e u n d e rh is ca r e a fte rth is co n s u lta tiv e v is it.N o. 08- 60901

After the administrative hearing, Dr. Ste uer wrot e a lette r indicating that thenerve 1 blocks Qualls h ad p reviou sly un dergonehad offered her only temporary relief b ut no long-term b enef its. Heals o st ate d th at Qu all s s uff eredf ro m s om e co mp onent of dis ab ilityan d di sk di se a se . 4 Q u al l s began t reat m en tun der D r. M i cha elSteuer ( “ S t eu er” ) i n A u gu st 2002. She c ont i nued t o r epo r tbac k pai n and t ol d D r . St euer th a ts he had
r e c e n tlys u ffe r e da fa l l
. D u r in gh e rco n tin u e dca r e u n d e rD r . S te u e r , Q u a lls
r epo r t ed s i gni f

i c ant i m pro vem ent , expe r i enc ed r el i ef w i t h m edi c at i on, and had
o nl y m o de r at e dif

f i c ul t y i n pe r f

o r m i ng da i l y ac t ivit i e s . D r . St e ue rpe r f o r m e d a
n erve rootbl ock an d n ot ed su bstanti ali m provem en t
. N evert h el ess, i n F ebru ary 200 3, D r. S t eu er com pl et ed a M edi calSou rce S t atem en ti n w h i ch h e i n di cat ed th a t Q u a l l s su ff

ere dsu ch sev ere ph ys i ca ll i m i tati on s th a t sh e w a s u n a b l e to pe r f o r m e ve n s e de nt ar y w o r k. 1 In A pri l200 3, at t h e A L J’ s r equ est , Q u al l s w as eval u ated b yD r. Jam es G al yon (“ G al yon ” ) on a on e- t i m e b asi s. D r. G al yon com pl et ed a M edi calSou rce St at em enti n w hi c h he de term i ned t hatQ ual l s, t hough ham per ed byphysi c al l i m i t at i o ns , r e t ai ne d t he a bil i t y t o pe r f o r m ar ang e o f

s e de nt ar y w o r k. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW O urr e v i e w o f

th eAL J ’ s d i s ab ilit y de t e r m i nat i o n “i s l i m i t e d t o a s c e r t ai ni ng w het her( 1) t he f

i nal dec i si on i s suppor t ed bys ubst ant i alev i denc e a nd ( 2) t hat p rop er lega lstan d a rd s w ere u sed to eva l u a te the ev i d en ce.” B row n v. A pfe l , 192 F
. 3d 492 , 4 96 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 9) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o ns o m i t t e d)

. “ I f t he [AL J’ s] f i ndi ngs ar e s upport ed by subs t ant i alev i denc e, t hey ar e c onc l usive and m ustbe
a ff i rm ed
. ” Se l de rs v . Sul l i v an , 914 F. 2d 614, 617 ( 5t h C i r . 1990)

. “ Su bs t ant i al evi den ce i s m ore t h an a m ere s cin ti l l a. I tm ean s s u ch rel evan tevi den ce as a r ea son a b l e m i n dm i gh t acce p t as a d eq u a te to su p p ort a co n cl u sion
. ” Co n so l. Ed i s o n Co

. of

N. Y. v . NLRB , 3 05 U
. S. 1 97 , 2 17 ( 19 38). “ In ap plyi ng t he

‘ s ubs t ant i ale vi de nc e ’ t e s t , w e m us tc ar e f ul l y s c r ut i ni z e t he r e c o r d t o de t e r m i neN o. 08- 60901

5 i f, i n fact , su ch evi den ce i s p resent. H ow ever, w e m ay n otrew ei gh t h e evi den ce i n the recor d, n or tr y t h e i ssues de no vo , n or sub st i t u t e ou r j u dg m en tf or t h at of th e [A L J ], e v e n if th e e v id e n c e p r e p o n d e r a t e s a g a in s t t h e [A L J ’ s ] d e c is io n .” Joh n son v. B ow en , 864 F
. 2d340 , 343 ( 5th C i r. 198 8)

. “ C on f l i ct s i n t h e evi den ce a re for the [A L J ] a n dn ot the cou rts to resolve
. ” S eld er , 9 1 4 F .2 da t 6 1 7
. O n ly
w her e ther e i s a “ c ons pi c uous abs enc e of c r edibl e c hoi c es or no c ont r ar y m edi c al
ev i d en ce” w i l lw e fi n dtha t t h e su b stan ti a l ev i d en ce st a n d a rd h a s n ot be en m et. Joh n son , 8 6 4 F .2 da t 3 4 3

– 4 4 (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n s o m itt e d). DI S CU S S I ON I . The ALJ’ s m i s t ake Q uall s a r gue s t hatthe di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n i t s de t erm i n ati o n t hatt he ALJ ’ s e r r o r i n s e t t i ng f o r t h o ne o f he r p hy s i c a l a i l m e nt s was ha r m l e s s . TheALJ st ated t h at Q u al l s’ s an n u l ar tear h ad b een “el i m i n ated” w h en , i n fact , surgery ha dn o tr e p a i r e dt he d e fe c t
. Q ua l l s s p e c ul a t e s t ha t , w i t ho utt hi s er r o r , t he ALJ
m ayha ve f

o und he rt e s t i m o ny c r e dibl e , a s s e s s e d t he m e di c ale vi de nc e i n a di f ferent li gh t , a n d determ i n ed that her l i m i t ati on s w ere m u ch m ore s evere— so sev ere as to fi n d h er disab l ed
. T h e A L J ’ s m i stak e, Q u a l l s a rg u es, en ti tl es he r to
r eve r sa land a new di sabi l i t y de t er m i nat i on hear i ng. “P r o c e d u r a l p e rfec tio n in a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e e d in g s is n o t r e q u ir e d
. T h is
c our tw i l lnotva ca te a j udgm entunl es s t he s ubst ant i alr i ght s of a par t y have b ee n a ff ected
. ” Mays v. B ow en , 837 F
. 2d136 2, 136 4 ( 5t h C i r . 198 8)

. W he r e t he
r e s u l t i n g d i s a b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e m a i n s u n c h a n g e d , e v e n i f s o m e o f t he reasoni n g u n derl yi n g t h at deci si on i s er roneou s, no su bstanti alri gh t s hav e been
a ffe c te d
. S e eid
. “ T h e procedu ral i m propri et i es al l egedby [ Q u al l s] w i l lt h eref ore c o ns t i t ut e ab as i s f

o rr e m ando nl y i f

s uc h i m pr o pr i e t i e s w o ul d c as ti nt o do ubtt he
ex i sten ce of su b s ta n tia l ev i d en ce to su p p ort th e A L J ’ s d ecisi on . ” Mor r i s v. B ow en , 8 6 4 F .2 d3 3 3 , 3 3 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ).N o. 08- 60901

6 Q u a l l s’ s atta ck on the A L J ’ s d ecisi on i s w i th ou t m erit. S h e h a s fai l ed to
s ho w t hatt he ALJ’ s di s ab i l i t y de t e r m i nat i o n woul d ha ve b e e n dif fe r e ntif

t he A L J h a dn o t m is ta k e n lyn o te dth a t h e ra n n u la rte a rh a db e e n r e p a i r e d
. A revi ew of t h e recor d reveal s t h at t h e A L J did not m ak e hi s deci si on i n reli an ce o n t he de t e r m i nat i o n t hats u rg e r y hade l i m i nat e d t he de fe c t
. I n fac t , t he surgery i s on l y m en t i on ed on ce i n the ei gh tp age op i n i on— i n t h e A L J’ s r evi ew o f Q u a lls ’ s m e d ic a l h is to r y . Rat he r , i n a nalyz i ng h er p hys i c all i m i t at i o ns , t he ALJ he ar d t e s t i m o ny f rom Q u al l s, revi ew ed the m edi cal recor ds sub m i t t ed, an d sol i ci t ed the opi n i on o f av o c a t i o n a le x p e r t
. No n e o f t h e s e a r e a l l e g e dt o h a v e l a b o r e du n d e rt h e s a me m i s c o nc e pt i o n wi t h r e s pe c tt o Q uall s ’ s a nnul art e ar . The e f fe ct ive ne s s o f

t he
a n n u lo p la s t yh a dn o im p a c t o n t h e A L J ’s d is a b il it yd e t e r m in a t io n a n dQ u a ll s ’s
s p e c u la tio n th a t t h e A L J ’ s d e c is io n w o u ldh a v e b e e n d iffe r e n t w ith o u t t h is t echn i calerr or i s un f ou n ded
. A s t h e di st ri ctcourtpoi n t ed ou t , despi t e t h e err or, t h e A L J f

ou n d t h at Q u al l s w as severely i m pa i red du e t o back pain. Th e qu est i on w as nev er w h et h er Q u al l s s u f fered nor w h et h er t h e an n u l ar t ear ha d been
r e p a ir e db u t t h e e x te n t t o w h ic h th is s u ffe r in ga ffe c te dh e ra b ilityto w o r k
. W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e e f fe c t t h a t t h e AL J ’ s m i s t a k e m a y h a v e h ado n t he de t e r m i nat i o n t hatQ uall s w as no tc r e dibl e , t he r e c ord r e ve al s t hatt he
a s s e s s m e nto f

t he a nn ul a rt e a rp l ayed no parti n t hi s a na l y s i s . Th e ALJ
com pa red Q u al l s’ s t est i m on y w i t h t h e ph ysi cal pa i n she descr ibedt o her doctor s, n ot i n g t h at w h i l e Q u al l s s t ated t h at s h e exp eri en ced da i l y back pain at a l evel of 9 o n a 10- poi nt sc al e, she c ons i st ent ly t ol d D r . St euert hatherpai n l eve lw as on l y betw een 4 to 6. A tt h e hea ri n g, she represented t h at s h e w as very l i m i t ed i n herabil i t y t o pe r f or m house hol d c hor es but had pre vi ous l y t ol d doc t or s t hat
s h e p e r fo r m e dth e s e w ith o u t m u c h d iffic u lty
. S h e fu r th e rte s tifie dth a t h e rp a in
w as o nl y m ar gi nall y all e vi at e d b y m e di c at i on de s pi t e ha vi ng t o l d he rt r e at i ng phy s i c i ans t hatO xy c o nt i n was e xt r e m e l y e f fe c t ive i n c o nt r o l l i ng he rpa i n. TheN o. 08- 60901

7 A L J pointed out oth er i n consi st en ci es. A m on g t h ese, Q u al l s: 1) t est i f i ed t h at her back i m pa i r m e ntw as t he r e s ul to f a1 98 8 c ara c c i de ntw hi c h s e ve r e l y l i m i t ed he rphy s i c ala bil i t i e s b utc o nt i nue d t o w o r k f o rm anyy e ar s t he r e af t e ra nd
m a i n ta in e d a n active lifestyle; 2) statedtha t sh e cou l don l y sit for t w en ty
m i nut e s b uthe rt e s t i m on y w as b e l i e d b y t he fac tt hats he t e s t i f i e d t o ha vi ng t ak e n ac art r i p t o the Sm o ke y M ou n t ai n s; 3 ) w o r e a n a r m b r ac e dur i ng t he h earin ga n d cl ai m ed that itw as t o t reather Sj ogren’ s Syn drom e bu tl ater ad m i t t e d t hats h e h as on l y be gunw e ar i ng t he b r ac e afe w da ys pr i o rt o t he hear i ng, no physi c i an r ec or d subst ant i at ed t he nee d f ort he br ac e, and s he had
n ever been t reat ed f

or Sj ogren’ s Syn drom e; 4) en gag ed i n ong oi n g pa i n beh avior duri ng t he hear i ng as w el las f l ai l i ng m aneuver s of h erarm s, n one of

w hi c h had
eve rbe en pr evi ous l y c om m uni c at ed t o do c t or s orf orm ed partof

herm edi c al
recor ds. A s i s evi den tf rom t h e rec ord, Q u al l s w as d i scr edi t ed by i n consi st en ci es i n he rt e s t i m o ny, t he m e di c alre c o r d b e f o r e t he ALJ, a nd h e rb e hav i o rdur i ng t he h e a r in g , n o t t h e A L J ’ s m is ta k e . Bec aus e t he A L J’ s d e c i s i o n woul d no tha ve b e e n dif fe r e ntw i t ho utt he
e r r o rr e ga r di ng Q uall s ’ s a nnul art e ar , w as no tb as e d o n t he e f fe c t ive ne s s o f

t he
annu l o pl as t y i n any e ve nt , a nd d i d no ta f fe c tQ uall s ’ s s ubs t ant i alr i ght s , t he
m i s t a k e w a s h a r m le s s . Mays , 837 F
. 2d at 136 4. A ccor di n gl y, Q u al l s i s not ent i t l ed t o r eve r sa lora new di sa bi l i t y hear i ng. I I . Th e t r eat i ng ph ys i ci an’ s opi ni on Q uall s a s s e r t s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n i t s de t e r m i nat i o n t hatt he opi n i on of

her t reat i n g ph ysi ci an , D r. Steuer, di d not m eet t h e l egal st an da rd f or controlli n g w ei gh t
. Sh e argu es t h at D r. Steuer’ s opi n i on , w h i ch f ou n d h er d is a b le d , sh o u ldh a v e b e e n g iv e n co n tr o llin gw e ig h t b e c a u s e s h e s a w h im
num er ous t i m es be f or e a ppl yi ng f

ordi sa bi l i t y and he c om pl et ed a M edi c al S ou rce S tatem en t. E sse n ti a l l y, Q u a l l s m a i n ta in s tha t D r. S teu er’ s d i sa b i l i ty de t e r m i nat i o n s ho ul d pr e va i lov e rco nt r ar y e vi de nc e i n t he r e c o r d a nd t hatt heN o. 08- 60901

8 A L J co m m i tted a n e rror of law b y fai l i n g to g ive h i s op i n i on co n trolli n g w eigh t. Q u al l s al so argues t h at th e A L J gav e D r. Steuer’ s opi n i on no w ei gh tan d fai l ed to p e r fo r m th e s ta tu to r ya n a ly s is re q u ir e dw h e n m a k in gth is d e c is io n . W h e r e th e A L J r eje c ts t h e o p in io n o f th e t r e a tin gp h y s ic ia n , w e h a v e h e ld t hat , “ abs entr el i abl e m edi c alevi denc e f r om a t r eat i ng orexam i ni ng physi c i an controver t i n g t h e cl ai m an t ’ s t reat i n g speci al i st , an A L J m ay rej ectt h e opi n i on o f t h e t r e a t i n gp h y s i c i an o n ly if t he ALJ pe r f

o r m s ade t ail e d a nalys i s o f t he tr e a tin gp h y s ic ia n ’ s v i e w s u n d e rth e cr ite r ias e t fo r th in 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 7 (d )(2 ).” New t on v. A pfe l , 2 09 F. 3d 44 8, 45 3 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 00 )

. U nde rt he
s t at ut o r y ana l ys i s , t he AL J m us t e va l uat e : (i) t he “ [l] e ngt h o f t he t r e at m e nt rel ati on shi p an d the f requ en cy of exam i n ati on , ” (ii) the “[n ] ature an d extent of t he t r eat m e ntr e l at i o ns hi p, ” (i i i) t he s upp o r t i ng e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d b y t he phy s i c i an, (iv) t he l e ve lof co ns i s t e nc y be t w e e n t he phys i c i an’ s opi ni o n a nd the
r ec or d, (v) t he phys i c i an’ s spe c i al i zat i on, and (vi) any ot herr el evantfac t or s. 20 C

. F. R
. § 404. 1527( d) ( 2)

– (6). T h e o pi ni on o f a t r eat i ng physi c i an “ m ay be
a s s ig n e dlitt le o r n o w e ig h t w h e n g o o dca u s e is s h o w n . G o o dca u s e m a yp e r m it
a n A L J to discou n t th e w eigh t of a trea ti n g p h ys i ci a n relative to oth er ex p erts
w her e the trea ti ng physi c i an’ s evi denc e i s c onc l uso r y, i s unsupport ed by
m e d i c a llya c c e p ta b le clin ic a l, la b o r a to r y , o rd ia g n o s tic te c h n iq u e s , o ris oth erw i se u n su p p orted bythe ev i d en ce.” New t on , 209 F
. 3d at 455–5 6 (ci t ati on o m itt e d); see als o Mart i n ezv. C h a ter , 6 4 F .3 d1 7 2 , 1 7 6 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) (in d eterm i n i n g w h e th er to g ive a trea ti n g p h ys i ci a n ’ s op i n i on con trolli n g w eigh t, th e A L J m u s t lo o kto w h e th e rth e o p in io n i s “ ‘w e l l -s u p p o r te db ym e d ic a lly
ac c e pt ab l e c l i ni c ala nd l ab o r at o r y di ag no s t i c t e c hni que s a nd i s no ti nc o ns i s t e nt
w ith
. . . oth e r s u b sta n tia l ev id e n ce ’” (q u o tin g2 0 C .F .R
. § 4 0 4 .15 2 7 (d)(2))).

“ [A] l t h ou gh t h e opi n i on of an exam i n i n g ph ysi ci an i s general l y en t i t l ed t o m ore w ei gh tt h an the opi n i on of a n on - exam i n i n g ph ysi ci an , t h e A L J i s f ree t o rej ectN o. 08- 60901

Whilethe ALJst ated that he “weighed the medical opinion s of record with 2 consi derationof the factor s set out in
. . . 20 CFR 404 .152 7” he failed toset forththese factors orp rovide ananalysi s of eachele ment. 9 th e o p in io n o f a n yp h y s ic ia n w h e n th e e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts aco n tr a r yco n c lu s io n .” B rad ley v. B ow en , 8 0 9 F .2 d1 0 5 4 , 1 0 5 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) (q u o ta tio n o m itt e d). The AL J di d no tf

o l l o w t he s t at ut o r y ana l ys i s s pe c i f i e d i n Ne w t o n f

or r eje c tin g a tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n ’ s o p in io n . N e v e r th e le s s , Q u a lls ’ s c h a lle n g e fa ils 2 andt he di s t r i c tco ur tpr o pe r l y de t e r m i ne d t hatt he A LJ di d no te r ri n de c l i ni ng to give D r. S eu er’ s op i n i on con trolli n g w eigh t. As a n i ni t i alm at t e r , t he r e c o r d d o e s no tsu ppor tt he a s s e r t i o n t hatt he A L J com pl et el y di scoun t ed D r. Steuer’ s op i n i on . T h e A L J on l y rej ect ed p art s of D r . St euer ’ s opi ni on; s pec i f i c al l y, t hos e t hatdi d notc onf or m t o hi s ow n cli ni c al
n o t e s a n dc o n t r a d ic t e dth e r e c o r d . I n it s e x t e n s iv e a n a ly s is o f e a c h p h y s ic ia n ’s
o pi n i on , t h e A L J pointed out th at D r. Steuer consi st en t l y docu m en t ed im provem en ti n Q u al l s’ s pai n bu tt h en , w i t h no exp l an ati on of t h e sud den cha n ge, opi n ed that Q u al l s w as so severel y l i m i t ed as to be u n able t o perf orm e ve n s e de nt ar y w o r k. Thi s w as i nc o ns i s t e ntw i t h b o t h hi s o w n c l i ni c alno t e s a nd th e o p in io n s o f th e o th e re x a m in in gp h y s ic ia n s . The AL J pr o pe r l y de c l i ne d t o give D r . St e ue r ’ s o pi ni o n c o nt r o l l i ng w e i ght anddi d no te r rb y fail i ng t o pe r f o r m t he s t at ut o r y ana l ys i s o ut l i ne d i n New t on . F ir s t, New t on specif i cal l y st ates t h at th e st a tu tory st eps m u stbe f ol l ow ed

“ abs ent r el i abl e m edi c al evi denc e f r om a t r eat i ng or exam i ni ng p h ysi c i an c ont r ove r t i ng t he c l ai m ant ’ s t r eat i ng spe c i al i st
. ” 209 F. 3d at453. The A LJ w as pr e s e nt e d wi t h s ubs t ant i ale vi de nc e w hi c h c o nt r ad i c t e d Dr
. St e ue r ’ s o pi ni o n. Q uall s wa s s e e n b y f iv e t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n s a n d , d e s p i t e e v i d e n c e t h ats he i nf o r m e d s e ve r aldo c t o r s t hats he s o ugh tdi s ab i l i t y be ne f i t s , s he o bt ai ne d a M ed i ca lS ou rce S tatem e n t fr om on l y o n e— D r. S teu er. F rom O ctob er to D e c e m b e r2 0 0 2 , D r . S t e u e rd o c u m e n t e de x c e ll e n tim p r o v e m e n tin Q u a ll s ’sN o. 08- 60901

10 s ym pt o m s a nd i ndi c at e d t hatshe had o nly m o de r at e dif f i c ul t y i n pe r f

o r m i ng t he
ac t ivit i e s of

dai l y l i fe . N e ve r t he l e s s , t he M e di c alSo ur c e St at e m e nthe f i l l e d o ut t w o m on t h s l aterstat ed t h at Q u al l s w as incapa bl e of perf orm i n g even seden t ary w o r k. N o t hi ng i n Qual l s ’ s m e di c al r e c o r d e xp l ai ns t he s udd e n c hang e a nd the i nco nsi st enc y be t w ee n D r . St euer ’ s M edi c alSource St at em entand hi s c l i ni c al
n ot es. O n t h e contr ary, D r. T u ck e r a n d D r. Staggs, Q u al l s’ s pri or phy si ci an s, determ i n ed th a t h er li m i t ati on s w ere not di sabl i n g. Tw o ot h er doct ors, D r. W el ch an d D r. G al yon , al so co m pl et ed M edi calSou rce S t atem en t s af t er ex a m i n i n g Q u a l l s. W h i l e D r. W elch d eterm i n ed th a t sh e w a s so d i sa b l ed as to be un abl e t o per f

or m even sede nt ar y w or k, D r . G al yon di sa gr ee d. Th e AL J gav e D r . W e l c h ’ s o p i n i o n l i t t l e we i g h t , f i n d i n g i t t o d iv e r g e f r o m t h e r e c o r d a nd Q u alls’ s o w n cl ai m s. D r. W el ch opined tha tQ u al l s s u f fered f rom a rang e of ph ysi call i m i t ati on s of w h i ch Q u al l s had nev er co m p la in e d an d w h i ch n on e of h er t reat i n g ph ysi ci an s h ad ever observed. B y contrast , D r. G al yon ’ s o p in i on w as s upp ort ed b y t he i nde pe nde ntm e di c ala nalys i s o f Q uall s ’ s o t he rt r e at i ng ph ysi ci an s, D r. T u cker an d D r. Staggs, as w el las D r. Steuer’ s ow n cli n i calnotes. Se co nd, e ve n if

w e r e ad New t on as re q u i ri n g th e A L J to set f orth i ts
ana l ys i s o f

t he f ive s t at ut o r y e l e m e nt s w he n de c l i ni ng t o give c o nt r o l l i ng w e i ght to atr e a tin gp h y s ic ia n , Ne w t o n does n otapp l y. Th e New t on cou rt li m i tedi ts h ol di n g t o cases w h ere t h e A L J rej ect s t h e sol e rel evan tm edi calopi n i on bef ore i t
. I n New t on , “t he ALJ s um m ar i l y r ej e c t e d t he o pi ni o ns o f [c l ai m ant ’ s ] t r e at i ng phy s i c i a n , b a s e do n l yo n t h e t e s t i m o n yo f an o n - s p e c i a l t yme d i c a le x p e r tw ho h a dn o t e x a m in e dth e c la im a n t.” 2 0 9 F .3 da t 4 5 8
. Ne w t o n w a s n ot a ca se w i th

“ c om pet i ng f

i r st- h and m edi c alev i denc e” w her e t he A LJ f ound “ as a fac t ual
m att er t h at one doct or’ s op i n i on [w a] s m ore w el l

- f ou n ded tha n an ot h er. . . . N or [w a] s t h is a c ase w h ere t h e A L J w ei gh [ ed] t h e t reat i n g ph ysi ci an ’ s opi n i on on di sabi l i t y aga i n stt h e m edi calopi n i on of other ph ysi ci an s w h o [h ad ] t reat ed or
e x a m in e dt h e c la im a n t a n d[h a d ] s p e c ific m e d ic a l b a s e s fo ra c o n tr a r yo p in io n .”N o. 08- 60901

11 I d. Th e New t on c o ur t al s o de al t w i t h an i nc o m pl e t e r e c o r d. N o ne o f t h ese fact ors are present here. A s p revi ou sly n ot ed, the A L J’ s d eci si on w as b ased on t h e m edi calo p in ion of doct ors w h o ha d tr eated an d exa m i n ed Q u al l s. Th ese p h y s ic ia n s h a din fo r m e d , firs t-h a n d , k n o w le d g e to s u p p o r t t h e iro p in io n s . B e c a u s e D r . S te u e r ’ s o p i n io n w a s n o t “ w e ll-s u p p o r te db ym e d ic a lly
ac c e pt ab l e c l i ni c ala nd l ab o r at o r y di ag no s t i c t e c hni que s ” and was “i nc o ns i s t e nt
w i th
. . . oth er su b stan ti a le vid en ce” i n th e reco rd , th e A L J w a s n ot req u i red to g iv e h is o p in io n co n tr o llin gw e ig h t. Mart i n ez , 64 F
. 3d at 176 ( qu ot ati on o m i tted). T h e A L J a p p l i ed th e pro p er l eg a l stan d a rd a n d h i s d ecisi on is
s u p p o r te db ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . S e eB r o wn , 1 9 2 F .3 da t 4 9 6
. CO NC L US I ON T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.