In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________

No. 04-2218

JAMES H. WHITE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 03 C 522—Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge.

____________

ARGUED JANUARY 20, 2005—DECIDED JULY 14, 2005

____________

Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and BAUER and KANNE,

Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Circuit Judge. In June 2000, James White filed

for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments under Titles II and XVI of the Social

Security Act based on a variety of ailments. After his

applications were denied, a hearing was held on his claims

before an Administrative Law Judge. The ALJ concluded

that White was not disabled as defined by the Act because

he retained the ability to perform a significant number of

jobs in the national economy. The district court affirmed.

We affirm.
2 No. 04-2218

I. Background

White has had two significant injuries. In September 1982,

he was involved in a motorcycle accident, in which he sustained a fracture of his right femur and a fracture of his

right proximal tibia with disruption of the posterior cruciate

ligament. Following the accident, White applied for and was

awarded disability benefits from approximately September

1982 through June 1989.

Sixteen years after the motorcycle accident, in November

1998, White developed neck and right arm pain, which he

attributed to a seasonal job that required him to pick up

and deliver wreaths and other Christmas decorations. The

pain persisted despite physical therapy, spreading down his

arm to his fingers and into his left leg. White was seen by

various doctors for his pain, but the medical examinations

failed to reveal any abnormalities apart from limited range

of motion and tenderness in the neck.

On July 20, 2001, White saw his family physician,

Dr. Woldum. White reported that he constantly felt stiff and

swollen all over and that he was chronically tired because

the pain interfered with his sleep. Dr. Woldum diagnosed

White with chronic musculoskeletal pain and referred him

to Dr. Zondag, an occupational medicine specialist.

Dr. Zondag evaluated White on August 2, 2001. White

reported pain associated with a myriad of daily activities

and also stated that he suffered from headaches, double vision, ringing in his ears, dizziness, chronic nasal congestion,

sore gums, trouble with swallowing, shortness of breath,

heat intolerance, excessive sweating, difficulty with urination, constipation, nightmares, flashbacks, and decreased

sexual performance. After listening to White’s complaints

and performing a physical examination, Dr. Zondag concluded that White had: (1) cervical disk changes which had

been treated and were nonprogressive with radiculopathy

by examination; (2) status post trauma to the right hip with
No. 04-2218 3

1 Somatoform disorders are “a group of psychiatric disorders

characterized by physical symptoms that suggest but are not fully

explained by a physical disorder and that cause significant

distress or interfere with social, occupational, or other functioning.” THE MERCK MANUAL OF DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY, Sec. 15,

Ch. 186 (17th ed. 1999).

right hip and femur injuries with persisting residuals; and

(3) chronic pain disorder with somatoform pain disorder

present.1

White saw Dr. Woldum again on January 8, 2002, and he

complained of the same overall symptoms. Dr. Woldum

diagnosed chronic musculoskeletal pain and wrote a letter

indicating that White was unable to perform any type of

substantial gainful activity.

On June 5, 2000, White filed applications for Disability

Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income

payments, asserting that he was disabled due to pain in his

back, neck, upper torso, pelvis, and feet. The applications

were denied initially and again on reconsideration.

At White’s request, an administrative hearing was held

on February 5, 2002. White testified that he is bothered by

arm, shoulder, back, neck, and hip pain, which causes him

to feel tired and nauseous, and makes it difficult to sleep for

any length of time. Dr. Steiner, a physician who specializes

in physical medicine and rehabilitation, testified as a

medical expert. Based on his review of the results of a test

performed by Dr. Zondag and on the absence of objective

findings that are typically found in patients with severe,

chronic pain like that claimed by White, Dr. Steiner opined

that White’s “chief condition” was a “somatoform situation.”

Dr. Steiner also testified that none of White’s physical

conditions would meet or equal any listed impairment. Dr.

Steiner opined that White retained the ability to work at

the “light” exertional level, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b), with

only occasional overhead lifting on the right.
4 No. 04-2218

Richard Armstrong testified as a vocational expert. In

response to a hypothetical based on White’s background and

the ALJ’s residual functional capacity evaluation (an overhead lifting restriction, a sit/stand option, ability to

lift/carry 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds occasionally),

Armstrong stated that White could not perform his past

relevant work. However, Armstrong testified that an individual with White’s restrictions could perform the jobs of

assembly worker, of which there were 7,000 jobs in Wisconsin; security guard (1,000 jobs); cashier (5,000 jobs); and

visual inspector (1,000 jobs). Armstrong also identified jobs

that exist in significant numbers in the national economy

that a person with White’s limitations could perform.

On May 1, 2002, the ALJ issued a written opinion

rejecting White’s claim. Following the five-step sequential

evaluation from 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920, he

concluded that: (1) White was not performing substantial

gainful work; (2) White’s physical impairments are severe;

(3) the severity of White’s physical impairments does not

equal any listed impairment; (4) White cannot perform past

relevant work; and (5) White is capable of making a successful adjustment to work that exists in significant

numbers in the national economy. As a consequence of his

finding at Step 5, the ALJ concluded that White was not

disabled under the Act. The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the ALJ’s ruling,

and this appeal ensued.

II. Discussion

White offers several arguments on appeal. His primary

argument stems from Dr. Zondag’s conclusion that White

suffered from chronic pain disorder with somatoform pain

present, and Dr. Steiner’s opinion that White’s “chief condition” was a “somatoform situation.” The ALJ discounted

their opinions regarding somatoform, concluding that there
No. 04-2218 5

was no documentation of medically determinable somatoform. White asserts that this conclusion was in error and

that the ALJ should have given Dr. Zondag’s opinion controlling weight because Dr. Zondag was his treating physician. White also contends that he met the listing for

somatoform pain disorder and, as a consequence, the ALJ

should have found him to be disabled without regard to

vocational factors. As a fallback position, White maintains

that even if he does not meet a listing, the ALJ’s residual

functional capacity evaluation was erroneous because it had

no credible foundation in the medical evidence.

At the outset, we note that White made identical arguments before the magistrate judge, which were all rejected,

and he has made no effort to distinguish the magistrate’s

reasoning and conclusions. It is true that we owe no deference to the district court in the social security context,

and that White is not necessarily obliged to address its

analysis. Groves v. Apel, 148 F.3d 809, 811 (7th Cir. 1998).

But it is a risky tactic, especially where, as here, the

magistrate or district judge has issued a thorough and

persuasive opinion. For example, at both tiers of appellate

review, White invoked the “treating physician rule” from

the Social Security Administration Regulations to argue

that Dr. Zondag’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight.

The relevant regulation provides that the opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion

“is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and

laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent

with the other substantial evidence . . . .” 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1527(d)(2); Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord,

538 U.S. 822, 825 (2003). As the magistrate judge recognized, the problem with White’s argument is that

Dr. Zondag was not a treating source as that term is

defined by the regulations because he did not have an

ongoing relationship with White. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502.

Rather, Dr. Zondag, who only examined White once, fits the
6 No. 04-2218

2 The absence of a history of taking psychotropic medication may

not have been a relevant consideration. Based on our research, it

(continued...)

definition of a nontreating source: “Nontreating source

means a physician . . . who has examined you but does not

have, or did not have, an ongoing treatment relationship

with you.” Id. As a result, we agree with the magistrate

judge that the ALJ was not required to assign controlling

weight to Dr. Zondag’s opinion.

White also insists that the ALJ should have found him

disabled at Step 3 because the somatoform diagnosis evidenced that he met the somatoform disorder listing. See 20

C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, Listing 12.07. However, as

the magistrate judge pointed out, the ALJ concluded before

Step 3 that there was no documentation of medically

determinable somatoform disorder. That is the finding that

we must review, because if it was supported by substantial

evidence, then there was no reason to consult the somatoform listing. The ALJ provided the following rationale for

his conclusion:

[T]he opinions of Dr. Steiner and Dr. Zondag are not

given significant weight for mental impairments because neither doctor specializes in mental impairments.

Furthermore, Dr. Zondag’s opinion was based on the

claimant’s subjective complaints. In addition, he had

examined the claimant only once and might not have

been familiar with Mr. White’s medical history. The

claimant has never been treated for a mental illness,

taken any psychotropic medication, or alleged any

mental impairment.

App. 135. We consider the ALJ’s explanation to be reasonable and adequate to support his conclusion that there was

no documentation of medically determinable somatoform

disorder.2

 Indeed, it is difficult to think of more appropri
No. 04-2218 7

2 (...continued)

does not appear that persons suffering from somatoform disorder

are typically prescribed psychotropic medication unless the

disorder is accompanied by a coexisting mood or anxiety disorder

that requires such medication. Nonetheless, any such error is

harmless because the other reasons mentioned by the ALJ were

adequate to support his conclusion.

ate factors than a physician’s specialty and familiarity with

the patient and his medical history when determining how

much weight to assign to his opinions. The practice finds

support in both Supreme Court case law and the applicable

regulations. Black & Decker, 538 U.S. at 832; 20 C.F.R.

§§ 404.1527(d)(2)(i) and (d)(5). The somewhat tentative

nature of Dr. Steiner and Dr. Zondag’s diagnoses may also

have influenced the ALJ’s finding. R. 68 (explaining that

White suffers from “a somatoform situation”); R. 335

(diagnosing White with chronic pain disorder with somatoform pain disorder present). At any rate, it was not irrational or unreasonable for the ALJ to discount a psychiatric

diagnosis offered by two nontreating doctors who specialize

in physical impairments.

White next argues that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity evaluation has no credible foundation in the medical

evidence. It bears noting that White does not contend that

the ALJ’s conclusion about White’s functional capacity had

no foundation in the medical evidence, only that it had no

credible foundation in the evidence. This is a tough argument to make on a Social Security appeal because the

reviewing court “is not allowed to substitute its judgment

for the ALJ’s by reconsidering facts, reweighing evidence,

resolving conflicts in evidence, or deciding questions of credibility.” Jens v. Barnhart, 347 F.3d 209, 212 (7th Cir. 2003)

(citations omitted). Dr. Steiner’s testimony, along with

the opinions of two State Agency Medical Consultants,

provided the evidentiary foundation for the ALJ’s residual
8 No. 04-2218

functional capacity evaluation. In response to questioning

from the ALJ, Dr. Steiner opined that White could perform

“at least in the light range” with occasional overhead lifting

on the right side. R. 68. The State Agency Medical Consultants also opined that White could perform light work. The

light exertional range to which Dr. Steiner and the State

Consultants referred “involves lifting no more than 20

pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects

weighing up to 10 pounds.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b). The

ALJ’s ultimate residual functional capacity finding tracked

Dr. Steiner’s opinion almost exactly, and Dr. Steiner’s

opinion, buttressed by the State Consultants’ opinions, was

an adequate evidentiary foundation for the finding.

White also claims that the ALJ violated the “treating

physician rule” when he declined to give controlling weight

to Dr. Woldum’s opinion that he was unable to perform any

type of substantial gainful activity. But the opinion of a

treating physician is only entitled to controlling weight if it

is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and

laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent

with the other substantial evidence. . . .” 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1527(d)(2). Dr. Woldum’s opinion did not meet either

regulatory requirement. As explained by the ALJ,

Dr. Woldum’s opinion was based on White’s subjective

complaints rather than accepted medical techniques, and

White’s complaints were not credible in light of the opinions

of numerous physicians who examined him and found no

objective evidence to support his claims of debilitating pain.

Dr. Woldum’s opinion was also inconsistent with the

opinions of Dr. Steiner and the State Agency Medical

Consultants, and at least partially inconsistent with the

conclusions of several other physicians. Accordingly, we

reject White’s “treating physician rule” argument with

regard to Dr. Woldum’s opinion.

Lastly, White criticizes the ALJ for crediting Dr. Steiner’s

opinion about White’s residual functional capacity and then
No. 04-2218 9

discounting his opinion that White suffered from a “somatoform situation.” We do not view the ALJ’s selective crediting of Dr. Steiner’s opinions as problematic. Dr. Steiner

is a physiatrist; physiatrists are experts in diagnosing and

treating acute and chronic pain and musculoskeletal

disorders. The ALJ credited Dr. Steiner’s opinion to the

extent that it related to his specialty—White’s residual

functional capacity in light of his physical ailments—and

discounted Dr. Steiner’s opinion when he strayed from his

area of expertise and opined that White had a psychiatric

disorder. This was a reasonable way to distinguish among

Dr. Steiner’s opinions.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that the ALJ’s

findings were supported by substantial evidence and

AFFIRM the decision.

A true Copy:

Teste: 

 ________________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-02-C-0072—7-14-05