Opinion ID: 4516997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Shapiro’s Opinion

Text: Kaplowitz argues that the ALJ erred by failing to explicitly state the weight she gave Dr. Shapiro’s opinion in the 2014 statement that Kaplowitz could not have performed sedentary work during the covered period. The ALJ gave the 2013 letter and the 2013 report of Dr. Shapiro, Kaplowitz’s long-time treating physician, 3 Kaplowitz does not pursue on appeal her contention that some of the ALJ’s noncredibility factual findings were not supported by substantial evidence in the record and were legally flawed. 9 Case: 18-12100 Date Filed: 03/17/2020 Page: 10 of 15 little to no weight. And the ALJ gave great weight to the opinions of Dr. Gilman, a non-treating physician who reviewed Kaplowitz’s file but never treated her. But the ALJ did not expressly state what weight she gave Dr. Shapiro’s 2014 statement. “[T]he ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons” why that weight was assigned. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011). Absent “good cause,” the reviewing ALJ must give the medical opinions of the treating physician “substantial or considerable weight.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Good cause exists when “(1) [the] treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) [the] evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) [the] treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Even if good cause exists, the ALJ must articulate why she did not give the treating physician’s opinion considerable weight. Id. Otherwise, “it is impossible for a reviewing court to determine whether the ultimate decision on the merits of the claim is rational and supported by substantial evidence.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The ALJ found that Dr. Shapiro’s opinion in the June 2013 letter was entitled to little weight because it was irrelevant to whether Kaplowitz was able to work in a sedentary job during the covered period, which ended in 2002, because 10 Case: 18-12100 Date Filed: 03/17/2020 Page: 11 of 15 that letter seemed to address Kaplowitz’s ability to work in 2013. In her 2013 letter, Dr. Shapiro said that Kaplowitz’s pain was mostly controlled by treatment until 2011, which was almost a decade after she was no longer eligible for disability insurance benefits. And Dr. Shapiro concluded that Kaplowitz “is completely unemployable,” apparently referring to Kaplowitz’s inability to work in 2013, not to her ability to work during the covered period. Taken together, there was substantial evidence for the ALJ to conclude that the 2013 letter did not say that Kaplowitz was unable to work during the covered period. As for the September 2013 report, the ALJ found that the facts in the record did not support Dr. Shapiro’s opinion that Kaplowitz was completely unable to perform a sedentary job. There is evidence in the record that the treatment reduced Kaplowitz’s pain during the covered period and that Kaplowitz was able to perform sedentary work during that time. Because that evidence supported a finding contrary to Dr. Shapiro’s opinion, the ALJ had good cause to give the doctor’s opinion little weight. See id. (holding that good cause exists to discount a treating physician’s opinion when the “evidence supported a contrary finding”) (quotation marks omitted). When discussing the weight she gave each of Dr. Shapiro’s opinions, however, the ALJ did not explicitly state the weight she gave to the opinion expressed in the 2014 statement. Kaplowitz contends that was error. But even 11 Case: 18-12100 Date Filed: 03/17/2020 Page: 12 of 15 though she did not explicitly state the weight she gave the 2014 statement, the ALJ did discuss that statement generally and why it was not supported by the evidence in the record. It is unclear if that is enough to satisfy the requirement that an ALJ must state with particularity the weight she gives each medical opinion. Even assuming for purposes of this litigation that it was error, it was harmless error because it did not affect the ALJ’s ultimate decision. Diorio, 721 F.2d at 728. We know that the ALJ’s failure to explicitly state what weight she gave the 2014 statement did not affect her ultimate decision because she clearly considered the opinion Dr. Shapiro expressed in her 2014 statement, found that the evidence supported a contrary finding, and gave the opinion little to no weight — even if she did not explicitly state how little weight. And because the ALJ evaluated and discussed Dr. Shapiro’s opinion in her 2014 statement, we are able to determine “whether the ultimate decision on the merits of the claim is rational and supported by substantial evidence.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (quotation marks omitted). The ALJ noted that Dr. Shapiro’s opinion in the 2014 statement that Kaplowitz could not perform a sedentary job during the covered period was contradicted by her own opinion in the 2013 letter that the impairments significantly worsened in 2011 and by her notes in Kaplowitz’s medical records from the covered period. The ALJ also highlighted portions of Dr. Gilman’s testimony that refuted Dr. Shapiro’s opinion based on evidence in the record 12 Case: 18-12100 Date Filed: 03/17/2020 Page: 13 of 15 showing that Kaplowitz would still have been able to work during the covered period despite the pain. The ALJ found that Dr. Shapiro’s 2014 opinion that Kaplowitz “had debilitating pain” actually “detract[ed] from the credibility of [Dr. Shapiro’s] opinions” because it showed that she did not understand the regulatory requirements to prove that a person is disabled. Because of the ALJ’s discussion and evaluation of Dr. Shapiro’s 2014 statement, we know that she considered Dr. Shapiro’s opinion that Kaplowitz was unable to work in a sedentary job during the covered period and rejected it because the evidence supported a contrary finding. And we know that the ALJ’s finding was supported by substantial evidence in the record. There is no reason to conclude that merely articulating the specific amount of weight that she gave to Dr. Shapiro’s 2014 opinion would have changed her evaluation of it or her ultimate decision to deny Kaplowitz benefits. Even if the ALJ erred by failing to state with particularity the weight she assigned Dr. Shapiro’s 2014 statement, that error was harmless.