Opinion ID: 535680
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rejection of Psychiatrist's Opinion

Text: 26 We finally consider Bates' argument that the Appeals Council improperly rejected the opinion of a consulting psychiatrist, Dr. Killoran. 27 Two months after the ALJ issued his decision and while the matter was pending before the Appeals Council Bates submitted new evidence consisting of a report by Dr. Killoran detailing the results of a psychological evaluation of Bates. The psychological evaluation was based primarily on a mental status examination of Bates conducted by Dr. Killoran in March 1987 although the report also summarized and considered Bates' psychological and medical history. Dr. Killoran's diagnosis of Bates included chronic paranoid schizophrenia and amnestic syndrome secondary to alcohol abuse/head injury/polysubstance abuse. Dr. Killoran concluded that Bates is unemployable, severely debilitated and has a poor prognosis. Bates argues that Dr. Killoran's report proves that he is disabled. 28 Social Security regulations provide that where new and material evidence is submitted to the Appeals Council with the request for review, the entire record will be evaluated and review of the ALJ's decision will be granted where the Appeals Council finds that the ALJ's action, findings, or conclusion is contrary to the weight of the evidence currently of record. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.970. The Appeals Council shall consider any new and material evidence only where it relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ's decision. Id. 29 The Appeals Council considered Dr. Killoran's report but concluded that it did not provide a basis for review of the ALJ's decision. The Appeals Council explained that this was because the diagnoses in the report were based primarily on the mental status examination of Bates conducted in March 1987 and that they were not consistent with the medical evidence relative to the period ending on December 31, 1984, the last date Bates met the disability insured status requirements of the Social Security Act. 30 Bates contacted Dr. Killoran in March 1987, months after the ALJ's adverse decision and years after his insured status expired. Dr. Killoran's summation that the net result of the present clinical picture is that Mr. Bates is severely disabled from a psychological point of view and has a very poor prognosis, (emphasis added) reinforces the conclusion that the report was not relevant to the period in question. Moreover, the opinion of Dr. Killoran, a consulting psychiatrist who was first contacted months after the ALJ's adverse decision, is not consistent with medical evidence, including psychological evaluations and treatment records, pertaining to the relevant time period. We conclude that the Appeals Council did not err in rejecting Dr. Killoran's opinion and denying the request for review.