Opinion ID: 689651
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Treating Physicians' Evaluations

Text: 35 Plaintiff also claims that the ALJ failed to properly consider the opinions of Hughes' treating physicians. Although both Dr. Sanders and Dr. Becke concluded that Hughes could not perform even sedentary work, the ALJ, relying on Dr. Freeman's report, found Hughes capable of sedentary work, as long as it did not involve exposure to pulmonary irritants or temperature changes. Plaintiff charges that Dr. Freeman's report, opposed as it is to the examining physicians' opinions, does not constitute substantial evidence on which to base the Secretary's finding of no disability. 36 Generally, the Secretary will give more weight to a treating physician's opinion than to the opinion of a doctor who has not examined the claimant. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1527(d)(1). See also Grindle v. Sullivan, 774 F.Supp. 1501 (N.D.Ill.1991). The weight given to such opinions, however, can be affected by the length of the treatment relationship, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, and the degree to which the opinion is supported by the medical evidence. Id. If an ALJ decides to reject medical evidence offered by a treating physician, he must offer reasons for his decision. See Scivally v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1070, 1076 (7th Cir.1992) (The ALJ must minimally articulate his reasons for crediting or rejecting evidence of disability.). In this case, the ALJ favored the opinion of the non-examining expert, Dr. Freeman, over Dr. Sanders' work capacity evaluation and both Dr. Becke's written opinion and work capacity evaluation. The ALJ explained his decision with respect to each of the examining doctors. 37 Regarding Dr. Becke, the ALJ observed that the physician had only treated Hughes for one month while the decedent was in Arizona. Moreover, the ALJ concluded that by recommending at the time of his stay in Arizona, that [Hughes] be considered completely disabled permanently, Dr. Becke was limiting his recommendation to the period when Hughes was in Arizona. Although we may have drawn a different inference from Dr. Becke's language, the ALJ has cited the brevity of the doctor's treatment, along with the doctor's caveat, as his reasons for giving the evaluation little weight, and these reasons find support in the record. 38 Having expressly acknowledged that Dr. Sanders' Physical Capacities Evaluation Form contradicts his finding, the ALJ explained his decision to reject the evaluation. In her written report, Dr. Sanders stated that Hughes could not do heavy lifting, walk for prolonged periods, climb stairs, or withstand exposure to temperature changes and dusty environments. Along with the written report, Dr. Sanders filled out the evaluation form, in which she concluded that Hughes was not capable of even sedentary work, and further indicated that Hughes could not lift or carry more than five pounds and could not stand or sit for longer than half an hour at a time. The ALJ found Dr. Sanders' written report to be consistent with Dr. Freeman's findings that Hughes could perform sedentary work, and, therefore, that it was internally inconsistent with the evaluation form, which denied such capability. Consequently, the ALJ rejected the evaluation form, stating that it is impossible to reconcile with her written opinion. Trans. at pp. 11-12. 39 Read in isolation, Dr. Sanders' written report could support the inference that Hughes was capable of sedentary work, as found by Dr. Freeman. However, the evaluation form was submitted in conjunction with the written report, and the two must be read together. Notably, there is nothing in the evaluation which contradicts the written report. Instead, the evaluation merely clarifies the meaning of heavy lifting and prolonged periods. Accordingly, the evidence does not support the ALJ's decision to disregard Dr. Sanders' Physical Capacities Evaluation Form. See Scivally v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1070, 1076 (7th Cir.1992) (court found that different formats of two medical reports, one being more general than the other, accounted for apparent inconsistencies between them, and held that the evidence did not support the ALJ's decision to reject the treating physician's reports as totally in contradiction with each other.). 40 Although the ALJ erred in disregarding the evaluation form filled out by Dr. Sanders, the question before us is whether the ALJ's finding nonetheless is supported by substantial evidence. 4 We believe that it is. 41 The ALJ based his finding in large part upon the opinion of the non-examining expert, Dr. Freeman. Dr. Freeman's opinion was based on the medical exhibits available at the time, which included the medical reports of Dr. Becke and Dr. Arnold, as well as hospital records from Lawrence Memorial Hospital, but did not include Dr. Sanders' report or evaluation. However, in several important respects, Dr. Freeman's opinion comports with the medical evidence compiled by the examining physicians. First, as the ALJ pointed out, Dr. Sanders' written report supports Dr. Freeman's written assessment of Hughes' medical history and condition. Second, Dr. Freeman relied on Dr. Becke's assessment of Hughes' lifting and carrying capacity. While Dr. Becke's assessment differs from Dr. Sanders', it is notable that Dr. Becke examined Hughes more recently than Dr. Sanders. Accordingly, because there is record support for Dr. Freeman's opinion, a reasonable mind might accept Dr. Freeman's opinion as adequate to support a finding of no disability.