Opinion ID: 563891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ALJ's Findings Regarding Edwards' Mental Condition

Text: 20 Edwards argues that the ALJ improperly relied on Doctor Best-Williams' report instead of on Doctor Johnson's report. She correctly points out that the report of a non-examining doctor is accorded little weight if it contradicts an examining doctor's report; such a report, standing alone, cannot constitute substantial evidence. See, e.g., Spencer on behalf of Spencer v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 1090, 1093-94 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam). At oral argument, the Secretary concedes that if Doctor Best-Williams' report is significantly different from either Doctor Johnson's or Doctor Brooks' reports, then the case must be remanded. Our task, then, is to compare the three reports and determine whether Doctor Best-Williams' report disagrees with the other two. 21 Doctor Johnson's report consists of two pages. He diagnosed Edwards as suffering from Axis I Dysthymic Disorder, severe [and] Axis II Personality Disorder with mixed compulsive, dependent and avoidant features. In describing Edwards' limitations, Doctor Johnson indicated that she was found by her employer to be unable to carry out her duties, and there is some question about whether her back problem is a work-related injury. Apparently a combination of orthopedic and emotional problems are contributing to her inability to work. It is not clear whether Doctor Johnson means that Edwards is unable to work at any job, or whether she was merely unable to continue with her prior employer. Significantly, Doctor Johnson's report does not indicate what limitations might be expected due to the conditions he diagnosed. 22 Doctor Brooks, whose findings were described above, concluded that Edwards' impairment for work-related circumstances appear[ed] to be at a moderate to severe level primarily related to [Edwards'] ... level of depression, stress, major [sic] family problems. However, Doctor Brooks also indicated that [i]f employment were possible which would allow her a flexible routine for some standing and moving around at work, she would benefit greatly from some time away from her home situation. From this, we conclude that Doctor Brooks did not mean to imply that Edwards could not work; had this been her meaning, she would not have suggested working as a means of treatment. 23 Doctor Brooks also indicated that Edwards could not operate in a routine work setting unless flexible to allow for periodic movement and that initial part-time hours would be required. Significantly, Doctor Brooks did not explain why Edwards needed this freedom to move, nor did she indicate in general terms whether this freedom was mandated by Edwards' physical or mental condition. It is entirely probable, given the context of the case and the nature of Edwards' ailments, that Doctor Brooks included this limitation due to Edwards' physical complaints. Ultimately, the report is not clear in this regard. 24 Doctor Best-Williams' report recognizes that Edwards suffers from a dysthymic disorder and depression and accurately reflects the results of the tests administered by Doctor Brooks. Most importantly, Doctor Best-Williams provided an interpretation of Edwards' condition vis-a-vis the limitations those conditions placed on Edwards' abilities. Because this information was not contained in either Doctor Johnson's or Doctor Brooks' reports, we cannot say that Doctor Best-Williams contradicted their findings. Consequently, the ALJ did not err in relying on her report.