Opinion ID: 186118
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: lightfoote's medical opinions

Text: 28 Butler argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Lightfoote's medical opinions. Lightfoote's opinions, as those of Butler's treating physician, are entitled to controlling weight if they are not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence and are well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Indeed when all of the factors are satisfied[] 7 the adjudicator must adopt a treating source's medical opinion irrespective of any finding he or she would have made in the absence of the medical opinion. SSR 96-2p, Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source Medical Opinions, 1996 WL 374188, at  (SSA July 2, 1996). As the regulations assure claimants, [w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of... decision for the weight we give your treating source's opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). 29 We have a treating physician rule of our own. Because a claimant's treating physicians have great familiarity with [her] condition, their reports must be accorded substantial weight. Williams, 997 F.2d at 1498 (internal quotation omitted). A treating physician's report is binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence. Id. (internal quotation omitted). We thus require an ALJ who rejects the opinion of a treating physician [to] explain his reasons for doing so. Id. Here, however, the ALJ offered little more than the bare statement that the record is consistent with claimant retaining a residual functional capacity to perform the range of sedentary work noted.... JA 32. The ALJ's passing references to the other medical opinions are insufficient to override the substantial weight due Lightfoote's opinion. Furthermore, Lightfoote's opinions were confirmed by the results of an MRI, a CT myelogram, an EMG, an IME and an electroneurodiagnostic study. We thus cannot conclude, as did the district court, that credible medical opinions undermine Dr. Lightfoote's opinion or that the ALJ's logic can be understood without difficulty. Id. 19. 30 Relying on our decision in Williams, the Commissioner argues that the ALJ's acknowledgment of contrary evidence alone supplies an adequate basis for his decision. This case is not analogous to Williams, however, because the ALJ here did not acknowledge the contradictory evidence in the record, which record supplie[d] the reason for rejecting the treating physician's opinion. 997 F.2d at 1499. Our decision in Simms, in which we remanded to the Commissioner for the ALJ to explain the weight he attached to one of the claimant's treating physicians' opinions, supplies the more fitting analogue. 877 F.2d at 1052-53. In Simms the ALJ offered no reason for rejecting the claimant's treating physician's view in favor of those of consulting physicians. Id. at 1052. We held that upon remand, the ALJ should explain what weight he attaches to [the treating physician's] conclusions, or if he attaches none, his reason therefor. Id. at 1053. We believe we should impose the same directive here.