Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150309_0000542.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-03-23 13:00:25
Document Index: 484924216

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 636', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

Shmeka Michelle Grant, Plaintiff,
Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). In accord with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 DSC, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on February 17, 2015, recommending that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and remanded. (Dkt. No. 25). The Commissioner and the Plaintiff advised the Court that they would not file objections to the R & R. (Dkt. Nos. 27, 28). As set forth in more detail below, the Court reverses the decision of the Commissioner because the agency failed to adhere to the standards of the Treating Physician Rule and to comply with the requirements of Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700 (4th Cir. 2011) to weigh and reconcile new and material evidence offered for the first time to the Appeals Council.
Under the regulations of the Social Security Administration, the Commissioner is obligated to consider all medical evidence and the opinions of medical sources, including treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). This includes the duty to "evaluate every medical opinion we receive." Id. § 404.1527(c). Special consideration is to be given to the opinions of treating physicians of the claimant, based on the view that "these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant's] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations." Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). Under some circumstances, the opinions of the treating physicians are to be accorded controlling weight. Even where the opinions of the treating physicians of the claimant are not accorded controlling weight, the Commissioner is obligated to weigh those opinions in light of a broad range of factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, length of treatment, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinions in the medical record, consistency, and whether the treating physician was a specialist. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(5). The Commissioner is obligated to weigh the findings and opinions of treating physicians and to give "good reasons" in the written decision for the weight given to a treating source's opinions. SSR 96-2P, 61 Fed. Reg. 34490, 34492 (July 2, 1996).
Plaintiff asserts that she is disabled under the Social Security Act because of a combination of impairments of sarcoidosis and obesity. The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that Plaintiff's sacroidosis and obesity were severe impairments that limited her to sedentary work. Transcript of Record ("Tr.") 16, 17. No treating physician provided a written opinion prior to the ALJ's decision, and the only treating medical source opinion offered was by a physician assistant. Tr.301. Opinions were offered by two non-treating, non examining physicians concluding that Plaintiff was capable of performing light work, which included the ability to lift 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds occasionally and to stand or walk 6 hours in an 8 hour day. Tr. 84, 113-14. The ALJ, after considering Plaintiffs subjective complaints and testimony, rejected the opinions of the chart reviewers that Plaintiff was capable of performing light work and concluded that she was limited to performing only sedentary work. Tr.21.
After the ALJ issued his order, Plaintiff submitted to the Appeals Counsel a questionnaire prepared by her treating specialist physician, Dr. John Rucker. A review of Dr. Rucker's credentials on the website of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners reveals that he is a triple board certified physician, with certifications in internal medicine, pulmonology and critical care medicine. Dr. Rucker's opinions on Plaintiffs impairments were significantly more restrictive than the chart reviewers, finding that Plaintiff could stand or walk no more than two hours a day and could not lift more than 5 pounds. Tr. 534-35.
The Appeals Council indicated that it had received and considered Dr. Rucker's opinions and that the new information" does not provide a basis for changing the Administrative Law Judge's decision." Tr. 2. There is no indication in the Appeals Council decision or elsewhere that any fact finder weighed Dr. Rucker's opinions in light of the Treating Physician Rule or any other standard, and there is no effort to reconcile Dr. Rucker's opinions with other conflicting medical evidence and opinions in the record credited by the ALJ.
Reversal and remand are obviously necessary so that a fact finder can weigh and reconcile the conflicting evidence and to weigh the newly produced evidence from Plaintiff s treating specialist physician under the standards of the Treating Physician Rule. This is not an academic exercise or empty ritual because the ALJ himself recognized with even the limited record before him that the chart reviewers overstated Plaintiff's capacity to work and that Plaintiff was restricted to sedentary work. The addition of the opinions of Plaintiffs treating specialist ...