Opinion ID: 2978289
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Jones’s Opinion

Text: Here, the ALJ determined that Dr. Jones’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight because the opinion was “not supported by this physician’s own treatment notes wherein all examinations have been essentially normal.” The ALJ further held that Dr. Jones’s treatment of Simpson was mostly routine, primarily for sinus problems and dyspepsia, and that Dr. Jones had prescribed an anti-depressant to Simpson “for feelings of depression.” Simpson contends on appeal that Dr. Jones’ opinion is “entirely consistent” with her treatment notes. Further, the Commissioner argues that Dr. Jones’s opinion was conclusory and inconsistent with the record evidence, and that “[e]ach of the findings cited by Dr. Jones was an observation of Simpson’s own subjective pain behaviors.” Even assuming, arguendo, that Dr. Jones’s statements are conclusory, the ALJ’s finding as to Dr. Jones’s opinion is flawed in that the ALJ either mischaracterized the evidence or failed to review Simpson’s complete record. The ALJ suggests that Dr. Jones’s treatment of Simpson was mostly routine, primarily for sinus problems and dyspepsia. The record, however, reveals treatment notes from Dr. Jones beginning in December of 2002 and through June of 2004. Of the ten notes pertaining to the ten documented visits during this time period, seven of the visits concerned Simpson’s chronic pelvic pain and Dr. Jones’s attempts to help No. 08-3651 Simpson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Page 23 Simpson manage and control said pain. It is unclear, therefore, what evidence the ALJ relied upon or if he reviewed her complete record in finding that Dr. Jones mainly treated Simpson for sinus problems and dyspepsia. Consequently, the ALJ’s finding is not based upon substantial evidence. Additionally, as the magistrate judge soundly reasoned “[a] fair reading of Dr. Jones [sic] records reflects that she treated her patient on the basis that the patient’s pain complaint [sic], were real and sound, and those notes do not reflect ‘essentially normal’ examinations.” It is indeed unclear why and with what evidence the ALJ found that Dr. Jones’s notes reflect normal examinations. Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision to reject Dr. Jones’s opinion is not supported by substantial evidence. See Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544; see also Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509-10 (6th Cir. 2007).