Opinion ID: 183961
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Mansfield

Text: Dr. Mansfield treated Mr. Butler between 2003 and 2008. On September 10, 2008, he completed a RFC report in which he assessed Mr. Butler’s ability to sit at ten to fifteen minutes at a time, for one to two hours total in a hard chair, or up to three hours total in a soft chair; his ability to stand at five minutes at a time, up to two hours total; and his ability to walk at fifteen minutes at a time, up to four hours total. He opined that Mr. Butler’s symptoms would interfere with the necessary attention and concentration to perform work, and that he would need to take unscheduled breaks “all the time.” Id. at 392. He also opined that Mr. Butler would be absent from work more than four times a month. And he -7- stated that these assessments applied back to March 2003. The ALJ declined to give Dr. Mansfield’s opinions controlling weight because (1) the RFC report was contradicted by examination findings from 2004 and 2005 showing Mr. Butler was able to perform light to medium work and by Mr. Butler’s actual work activity with Home Depot during those years, (2) the report was inconsistent with Dr. Mansfield’s own treatment notes, and (3) the report relied on Mr. Butler’s allegations of increasing pain, which the ALJ found to be not credible. 1 The standards for evaluating a treating physician’s opinion are familiar: When evaluating the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must follow a sequential analysis. In the first step of this analysis, he should consider whether the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. If the answer to both these questions is “yes,” he must give the opinion controlling weight. But even if he determines that the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must then consider whether the opinion should be rejected altogether or assigned some lesser weight. Pisciotta v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 1074, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). “An ALJ may decline to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician where he articulates specific, legitimate reasons for his decision.” Raymond v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 1269, 1272 (10th Cir. 2009) (alteration and quotation omitted). 1 The ALJ also rejected Dr. Mansfield’s opinion that Mr. Butler met certain listing criteria. Mr. Butler does not address this portion of the ALJ’s decision or argue that he should have been found disabled at step three based on Dr. Mansfield’s opinion, and therefore we do not consider such issues. -8- On appeal, Mr. Butler argues that Dr. Mansfield’s RFC report was dated September 2008, and “[h]is opinion in September 2008[] is not inconsistent with Mr. Butler’s ability to perform work more than two years prior.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 22. But Dr. Mansfield did not restrict his opinion to September 2008, instead specifically stating that “Keith has had the limitations and restrictions outlined in the Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire since 3/2/03.” Aplt. App. at 394. As the ALJ noted, the actual circumstances of 2004 and 2005 clearly contradicted Dr. Mansfield’s RFC report. He did not err in concluding that such actual circumstances undermined Dr. Mansfield’s opinion as to Mr. Butler’s limitations. Mr. Butler also contends that Dr. Mansfield’s notes were not inconsistent with the limitations he assessed. He points out that MRI results in 2004 and 2008 showed his condition to be worsening. The ALJ, however, relied on different aspects of Dr. Mansfield’s treating notes. For example, in September 2008, Dr. Mansfield checked a box indicating that Mr. Butler has severe burning and painful dysesthesias, which conflicted with his own prior diagnoses of benign meralgia paresthetica. Mr. Butler further argues that Dr. Mansfield opined his impairments limited his ability to maintain gainful employment, and states, “[t]he ALJ has not provided the substantial evidence needed to reject the opinions of a long-time treating physician.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 23. The ultimate issue of a claimant’s -9- ability to work is reserved to the Commissioner, however; it is not a medical opinion entitled to controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e); Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at  (“[T]reating source opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner are never entitled to controlling weight or special significance.”). Finally, Mr. Butler states that the ALJ could not discount Dr. Mansfield’s opinion based on Mr. Butler’s credibility because the ALJ improperly evaluated his credibility. As discussed above, however, the credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.