Opinion ID: 63376
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Opinion of Zimmerman’s treating physician

Text: Zimmerman’s second argument is that the ALJ improperly disregarded the opinion of Dr. Taylor, his treating physician, without sufficient justification. Dr. Taylor opined that Zimmerman was unable to lift or carry more than ten pounds; could stand, walk, or sit less than two hours during an eight-hour work day; and could not twist, stoop, bend, crouch, squat, or climb ladders or stairs. Dr. Taylor also stated that Zimmerman’s pain was sufficiently severe to prevent Zimmerman from performing even low-stress jobs. The ALJ found Dr. Taylor’s opinion was “unsupported by the objective clinical evidence” and was “inconsistent with the evidence considered as a whole,” and he gave it little weight. Zimmerman bases his argument on Newton v. Apfel, in which we reversed an ALJ’s decision where the ALJ rejected the opinion of a treating physician without performing an analysis based on the six factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).1 209 F.3d 453, 458 (5th Cir. 2000). However, Newton is distinguishable. In Newton, the ALJ “summarily rejected the opinions of Newton’s treating physician, based only on the testimony of a non-specialty medical expert who had not examined the claimant.” Id. at 458. We emphasized that Newton did not involve “competing first-hand medical evidence,” nor did it involve “the medical opinion of other physicians who have treated or examined the claimant and have specific medical bases for a contrary opinion.” Id. Here, in contrast to Newton, competing first-hand medical evidence was present that 1 These factors are (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the relevant evidence supporting the opinion, (4) the consistency of the treating physician’s opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion is that of a specialist, and (6) “other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). 6 No. 07-20766 contradicted Dr. Taylor’s testimony. That evidence, discussed in detail above, included Dr. Hanley’s examination of Zimmerman that revealed full motor strength, MRIs indicating only mild problems, records indicating that pain medication was effective, and Zimmerman’s own testimony about his everyday activities. Moreover, we note that the ALJ did cite and list the six factors, and his discussion demonstrates that he considered several of the factors—he noted the evidence supporting and opposing the opinion, the inconsistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the fact that Dr. Taylor had no vocational expertise. Thus, we find no error in the ALJ’s decision not to credit Dr. Taylor’s opinion. Cf. Spellman v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 357, 364-65 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that it was proper to reject a treating physician’s opinion that the claimant could not perform sedentary work, because the opinion was inconsistent with evidence of the claimant’s everyday activities and with medical records).