Opinion ID: 546982
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ALJ's Request for Additional Information

Text: 19 We have repeatedly stated that when the ALJ rejects the findings of a treating physician because they were conclusory or not supported by specific clinical findings, he should direct a pro se claimant to obtain a more detailed statement from the treating physician. Bluvband, 730 F.2d at 895; see also Echevarria, 685 F.2d at 756 (proper course would have been to direct [the unrepresented claimant] to obtain a more detailed statement from the treating physician[ ]); Hankerson, 636 F.2d at 896 (basic principles of fairness require that [the ALJ] inform the [pro se ] claimant of his proposed action and give him an opportunity to obtain a more detailed statement). In the instant case, the ALJ determined that the opinions and reports of Cruz's other treating and consulting physicians contradicted Dr. Gheissary's opinion. Although the ALJ sent a letter to Dr. Gheissary four days after the hearing, requesting a more detailed explanation of the causes of Cruz's inability to work, he clearly failed to advise Cruz, a pro se claimant, that he should obtain a more detailed statement from Dr. Gheissary. Had Cruz been apprised of the ALJ's skepticism, he, unlike the ALJ, may have been persistent about obtaining his medical records and a detailed statement from Dr. Gheissary. 20 The Secretary argues that the ALJ's written request for additional information did comply with the requirements of the treating physician rule as set forth in a Social Security Ruling approved by this Circuit in Schisler v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 43, 46-47 (2d Cir.1988). While the requirement to obtain treating source evidence is couched in terms of every reasonable effort, the Ruling also states: If necessary to resolve the inconsistency [between the opinions of the treating source and other sources], the adjudicator will secure additional evidence and interpretation or explanation from the treating source(s) and/or consulting source(s). Id. at 47 (emphasis added). We believe that, based on the record in this case, this language requires something more than simply sending a letter as occurred herein.