Opinion ID: 486637
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discounting of Treating Physicians' Opinions

Text: 17 The Secretary found that Schnorr had the residual functional capacity to perform light work not involving frequent bending of the knees. In reaching this decision, however, the Secretary failed to afford the proper weight to the treating physicians' opinions. 18 In evaluating the medical evidence, the [Secretary] must accord 'substantial' or 'considerable' weight to the opinion of a claimant's treating physician unless 'good cause' is shown to the contrary. Broughton v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 960, 961-62 (11th Cir.1985); see also Syrock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 835 (11th Cir.1985). The Secretary must specify what weight is given to a treating physician's opinion and any reason for giving it no weight, and failure to do so is reversible error. MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir.1986). 19 The Secretary has defined light work as follows: 20 Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted may be very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be considered capable of performing a full or wide range of light work, [the claimant] must have the ability to do substantially all of these activities. 21 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1567(b) (1986). Most of Schnorr's treating physicians concluded that his ability to return to work was limited. Neufeld stated that Schnorr's arthritis and pulmonary impairments were totally disabling. Keller explained that Schnorr had limited abilities for standing, walking, climbing, and alternately sitting and standing. Homan concluded that Schnorr was unlimited in his ability to sit but was not fit for any ambulatory occupations. 5 None of these opinions supports a finding that Schnorr could perform the regulatory requirements of light work not requiring the frequent bending of the knees. 22 The Secretary properly discounted Neufeld's opinion that Schnorr was totally disabled because it was not supported by objective medical evidence and was merely conclusory. Neufeld found that Schnorr was totally disabled in part because of a pulmonary impairment. The Secretary noted, however, that the doctor who actually performed the pulmonary tests indicated that they were suggestive but not diagnostic of emphysema. Moreover, the test results indicated mild obtrusive pulmonary impairment, which Neufeld called significant. The Secretary therefore properly discounted Neufeld's opinion. 23 The Secretary, however, failed to present good cause for discounting the opinions of Keller and Homan. Considering the record as a whole, the medical evidence does not conclusively counter these doctors' opinions. The Secretary therefore accorded improper weight to the opinions of Schnorr's treating physicians, and this action must be remanded to the Secretary for a proper consideration of these medical opinions.