Opinion ID: 3045046
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relevance of ALJ's Observations of Lamp

Text: Lamp argues that the ALJ erred by considering its own observations when making an assessment regarding Lamp's disability. We conclude that the ALJ did not err when it based its decision, in part, on the ALJ's observations of the claimant. While the ALJ's observations cannot be the sole basis of his decision, it is not an error to include his observations as one of several factors. Cf. Jones v. Callahan, 122 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 1997) (When an individual's subjective complaints of pain are not fully supported by the medical evidence in the record, the ALJ may not, based solely on his personal observations, reject the complaints as incredible.) (emphasis added). Here, to reach his conclusion, the ALJ combined his review of the record as a whole with his personal observations. Our precedent, including Jones, does not forbid this. B. Evaluation of Lamp's Treating Physician's Opinion The ALJ discounted Dr. Ciaccio's December 1, 2003, opinion that stated that Lamp continued to be disabled. For support, the ALJ cited, in part, an apparently irreconcilable discrepancy between the December 1, 2003, letter and the doctor's treatment notes. Dr. Ciaccio failed to provide an explanation to the ALJ, despite repeated requests. However, Dr. Ciaccio did submit an explanation to the Appeals Council during its review of the ALJ's denial order. Lamp argues that there is no evidence in the Appeals Council opinion that this evidence was considered when the Appeals Council reviewed Lamp's appeal. Under agency regulations, the Appeals Council must consider additional evidence that is new, material, and relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ's decision. 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b). To be 'new,' evidence must be more than merely cumulative of other evidence in the record. Bergmann v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 1065, 1069 (8th Cir. 2000). And evidence is material if it is relevant to claimant's condition for the time period for which benefits were denied. Id. -4- In identifying the additional evidence on which it relied in denying Lamp's petition for review, the Appeals Council only references a statement dated September 23, 2004. Although Lamp's attorney failed to mention Dr. Ciaccio's undated letter as a separate document in his letter to the Appeals Council, the record clearly indicates that Lamp's attorney submitted this undated letter along with Dr. Ciaccio's September 23 statement. Whether the Appeals Council reviewed the undated letter when it considered Dr. Ciaccio's September 23 statement is not clear from the record. The Appeals Council noted that it considered new evidence, namely John J. Ciaccio, MD, statement dated September 23, 2004, in the record as Exhibit 10F. The record, however, does not clearly indicate whether Exhibit 10F included both the September 23 statement from Dr. Ciaccio and his later undated explanatory letter. In deciding this matter, the ALJ felt that an explanation of the discrepancy between Dr. Ciaccio's treatment notes and his December 1, 2003, narrative statement would be helpful in assessing the weight to give to the doctor's opinion regarding the state of Lamp's health in December 2003. The undated letter is the explanation that the ALJ requested. Because we are unable to discern whether the Appeals Council considered this new and material evidence, we remand this case to the district court with instructions to remand to the ALJ. See Gartman v. Apfel, 220 F.3d 918, 922 (8th Cir. 2000) (ordering a remand to the ALJ where the record did not clearly indicate whether the Appeals Council considered new and material evidence that was submitted after the ALJ's decision). On remand, the ALJ should consider whether the undated letter from Dr. Ciaccio adequately explains the discrepancy between his treatment notes and his December 1, 2003, statement.