Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180613_0000874.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:40:24+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff seeks review of a decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (hereinafter Commissioner) denying Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits pursuant to sections 1602 and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381a and 1382c(a)(3)(A) (hereinafter the Act). Finding error in the Commissioner's evaluation of the treating source opinion of Dr. Franz, the court ORDERS that judgment shall be entered pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) REVERSING and REMANDING the Commissioner's final decision for further proceedings.
Plaintiff argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in evaluating the treating source opinion of Dr. Franz and in evaluating Plaintiff's allegations of symptoms resulting from her impairments. She seeks remand for immediate award of benefits.
Remand is necessary because of error in the evaluation of Dr. Franz's opinion. Consequently, the Commissioner must reassess RFC on remand, which will necessarily include reconsideration of Plaintiff's allegations of symptoms. Therefore, the court need not address the allegations of error in the credibility determination and it may not provide an advisory opinion regarding credibility. Plaintiff may make her arguments in that regard on remand.
Plaintiff argues that Dr. Franz's opinion should have been accorded controlling weight. Specifically, she argues that the ALJ “failed to provide any reason supported by the evidence for not giving Dr. Franz's opinion controlling weight.” (Pl. Br. 14). In any case, she argues, Dr. Franz's opinion is worthy of deference and should have been given greater weight than the opinion of the state agency medical consultant, Dr. Timmerman. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ reasonably weighed the medical source opinions of Dr. Franz and Dr. Timmerman. She points to record evidence which in her view supports the ALJ's evaluation, and argues that the court should affirm the ALJ's evaluation even though the record might support two inconsistent conclusions. (Comm'r Br. 8-9) (citing Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084). The court cannot find controlling weight is due, but agrees that the ALJ did not cite evidence supporting his weighing of the opinion.
“Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant's] impairment(s) including [claimant's] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis.” 20 C.F.R. ' 416.927(a)(2). Such opinions may not be ignored and, unless a treating source opinion is given controlling weight, all medical opinions will be evaluated by the Commissioner in accordance with factors contained in the regulations. Id. ' 416.927(c); Soc. Sec. Ruling (SSR) 96-5p, West's Soc. Sec. Reporting Serv., Rulings 123-24 (Supp. 2017). A physician who has treated a patient frequently over an extended period (a treating source) is expected to have greater insight into the patient's medical condition, and his opinion is generally entitled to “particular weight.” Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 762 (10th Cir. 2003). But, “the opinion of an examining physician [(a nontreating source)] who only saw the claimant once is not entitled to the sort of deferential treatment accorded to a treating physician's opinion.” Id. at 763 (citing Reid v. Chater, 71 F.3d 372, 374 (10th Cir. 1995)). However, opinions of nontreating sources are generally given more weight than the opinions of nonexamining sources who have merely reviewed the medical record. Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078, 1084 (10th Cir. 2004); Talbot v. Heckler, 814 F.2d 1456, 1463 (10th Cir. 1987) (citing Broadbent v. Harris, 698 F.2d 407, 412 (10th Cir. 1983), Whitney v. Schweiker, 695 F.2d 784, 789 (7th Cir. 1982), and Wier ex rel. Wier v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 955, 963 (3d Cir. 1984)).

References: § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.