Opinion ID: 658342
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Mandel v. other doctors

Text: 13 In discounting Dr. Mandel's assessments, the hearing officer concluded that his findings were not consistent with the reports of other physicians. Decision of the Hearing Officer at 15. The hearing officer is by all means entitled to reconcile contradictory evidence in the record. See Herr v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 178, 181 (7th Cir.1990); Walker v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 635, 640 (7th Cir.1987). The existence of an evidentiary dispute is not a ground for reversing the hearing officer's decision to give credence to one version of the facts over another. See Herr, 912 F.2d at 181 n. 4; Reynolds v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 451, 454 (7th Cir.1988). Be that as it may, the hearing officer must not only offer some principled basis explaining why one account is worthier than another, but also explain with particularity the basis of the decision. Cf. Thomas v. Sullivan, 801 F.Supp. 65, 68 (N.D.Ill.1992). Within [r]easonable limits, the reasons for rejecting evidence must be articulated if there is to be meaningful appellate review. Young v. Secretary of HHS, 957 F.2d 386, 393 (7th Cir.1992); see also Brown v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 342, 346 (7th Cir.1988). A judgment favoring medical assessments A-L and discrediting M-Z, without further elucidation, is not based on substantial evidence. Zblewski v. Schweiker, 732 F.2d 75, 78-79 (7th Cir.1984) (In the absence of an explicit and reasoned rejection of an entire line of evidence, the remaining evidence is 'substantial' only when considered in isolation). 14 All of which raises a rather elementary point: Is there a true evidentiary conflict among the various doctors at all? One supposed inconsistency between the reports of Drs. Myers and Mandel on December 1, 1988, seems not a contradiction at all. Both doctors report that Dray is having continued discomfort or pain. While Dr. Myers does not indicate whether he did an examination, Dr. Mandel's findings discuss Dray's medical condition in greater detail. 15 Another inconsistency identified by the hearing officer is one between Dr. Arata's report on March 9, 1989, and Dr. Mandel's examination on April 24, 1989. Both doctors state that Dray has difficulty lifting heavy objects. Whereas Dr. Arata reports that Dray has lower spine stiffness and not so much pain, Dr. Mandel tells of a considerable amount of pain. Dr. Arata mentions brisk ankle jerks and Dr. Mandel discusses absent ankle jerks. With Dr. Arata, Dray exhibited no problem with toe or heel walking and bilateral, straight leg-raising to 90 degrees. In contrast, Dr. Mandel observed Dray throw both legs when walking and measured positive, straight leg-raising at 60 degrees. Whether these reports contradict one another or merely document an erosion in Dray's condition is beside the point because Dr. Arata concludes that Dray may need to have restricted activities for the rest of his life and Dr. Mandel similarly remarks that Dray should never return to his prior position. All in all, we are hard-pressed to see why the hearing officer issues such a hue and cry over these two sets of reports, whose differences really are in shades. 16 Once we discount the hearing officer's descriptions of inconsistencies between Dr. Mandel and Drs. Arata and Myers, what remains for consideration are the examinations and reports of Dr. Mandel, Dr. Myers, Dr. Mandel, Dr. Mandel, Dr. Mandel, and Dr. Warr. So there is not much left for Dr. Mandel to contradict, except, of course, himself. His findings dominate the record after April 1989 and chronicle the deterioration of Dray, leading him to conclude that his patient is permanently disabled. 2 Even though she asserted that Dr. Mandel's assessments conflicted with the reports of other physicians, in reality the hearing officer rejected his latest and most severe prognoses. In so doing the hearing officer did not reconcile contradictory evidence so much as she outright rejected assessments by Dr. Mandel that are uncontested by any evidence in the record after April 1989. In such a circumstance, [t]his court insists that the finder of fact explain why he rejects uncontradicted evidence. Stephens v. Heckler, 766 F.2d 284, 287 (7th Cir.1985).