Opinion ID: 2999140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Mental Impairments

Text: Sutton first claims that the ALJ ignored evidence that she had significant mental limitations, which led him to find, erroneously, that there were jobs in the economy that she could perform. She contends that the ALJ relied selectively on Dr. Conran’s assessment of her abilities and that he failed to explain his reasons for crediting certain parts of the assessment and rejecting others. But we discern no error. The ALJ specifically acknowledged Dr. Conran’s finding that she had slight to moderate limitations in a number of work-related abilities. He simply chose to weight these limitations less heavily than Sutton would have liked because the finding was based on Sutton’s “self-reporting” and because it was inconsistent with the totality of the record. Sutton also argues that the ALJ “mischaracterize[d]” the assessments of psychiatrists Conran and Tylkin as suggesting that she had the capacity to do unskilled work. It is true that neither doctor “made any statement regarding unskilled work,” but nor did either doctor indicate that she was “unable to meet competitive standards” in any category, even though such a rating (or its equivalent) was available on the questionnaires they completed. Therefore, the fact that they found her subject to significant limitations does not invalidate the ALJ’s finding that their reports showed that she had “capacity for at least unskilled work.” Sutton next argues that the ALJ erred in failing to grant the opinions of Drs. Piller and Tylkin the “substantial weight” he granted to the opinions of Drs. Zelby and Pena. In her view, Drs. Piller and Tylkin were entitled to be considered “treating physicians,” which would entitle their opinions to controlling weight as long as they were supported by medically acceptable tests and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See Hofslien v. Barnhart, 439 F.3d 375, 376 (7th Cir. 2006). But the ALJ did not unreasonably refuse to consider Drs. Piller and Tylkin treating physicians. A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to more weight because of his longitudinal perspective. Id. at 377. Without evidence that the physician has such a perspective, there is no reason to accord his opinions the greater weight. Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697, 702 (7th Cir. 2004). No. 05-2803 Page 6 Here, though there is some evidence that Sutton received diabetes medication from Dr. Piller as early as June 2002, the balance of the record suggests that Dr. Piller was Sutton’s primary physician for only a few months before the time of the hearing. Sutton may have seen Dr. Tylkin over a longer period, but she saw her for only fifteen minutes every three months. And when the ALJ asked if Dr. Tylkin would “sit and counsel” with her, Sutton answered, “If that’s what you want to call it.” As the ALJ properly recognized, this evidence stands in sharp contrast with the evidence of her treatment under Drs. Zelby and Pena. Dr. Zelby’s notes indicate that he had a “long discussion” with Sutton leading up to the March 2000 surgery. He performed the surgery, and he provided follow-up examinations, occasionally seeing her well into 2001. Dr. Pena first appears to have seen Sutton in February 2000. The record shows that he was her primary physician for at least two years; he coordinated her treatment with Dr. Zelby and treated her for pain, depression, and diabetes. In 2002, Sutton reported that she saw Dr. Pena monthly. Moreover, even if Drs. Piller and Tylkin were considered treating physicians, their opinions would be entitled to controlling weight only if they were “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Hofslien, 439 F.3d at 376. But insofar as they suggest that Sutton cannot work at all, Drs. Piller and Tylkin’s opinions are inconsistent with the record evidence dating from the time of her shoulder injury in 1999 to the middle of 2002. Though she had complained of depression since 1998, both Sutton and her doctors consistently expected that she would return to at least some form of light duty. Further, when specifically questioned about her mental and physical capacity to work, both Dr. Pena and the independent medical consultant Dr. Shah stated that she had no limitations that should keep her from working. Sutton counters that to the extent the basis for Drs. Piller and Tylkin’s opinions is not apparent, the ALJ was required under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(e) to recontact the doctors for clarification. But the regulation does not impose a duty to seek “additional evidence” unless the evidence received is inadequate to allow the ALJ to reach a conclusion about whether the applicant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (providing that ALJ “will try to obtain additional evidence” when “the evidence is consistent but we do not have sufficient evidence to decide whether you are disabled”); Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 504 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); cf. Barnett, 381 F.3d at 669 (holding that ALJ must seek clarification of medical opinions where detail is lacking and must seek updated medical records). In this case there was no reason for the ALJ to think any evidence was missing; nor was there any ambiguity in Drs. Piller and Tylkin’s opinions to be clarified. To require the ALJ to seek more information under these circumstances would be to shift to him the burden that belongs to Sutton. See Scheck, 357 F.3d at 702 (noting that applicant bears “burden of supplying adequate records and evidence”). No. 05-2803 Page 7