Opinion ID: 201856
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Rutchik report

Text: 41 Dr. Rutchik's report suffers from fundamental flaws. As an initial matter, Dr. Rutchik's conclusion that a consensus exists that Buffonge could perform a desk job is far from accurate. Buffonge's medical record as of October 1997, the date of Rutchik's report, contained at least three recent reports from Dr. Jacques concluding just the opposite. Dr. Rutchik also had before him the reports of Dr. Duhme, Buffonge's longtime treating physician, who had repeatedly examined Buffonge and deemed him fully disabled, and who had stated that very summer that Buffonge could not engage in sustained sitting or devote his attentions to any work. The Duhme reports alone preclude Dr. Rutchik's finding of a consensus that Buffonge could perform desk work. Similarly, his conclusion that there was no objective evidence to support Dr. Duhme's conclusion is contradicted by Dr. Duhme's personal observations on examination of Buffonge. 42 Dr. Rutchik's parsing of Dr. Jacques' August 27 report is also, we think, not a fair reading. The Jacques report's explicit statement that Buffonge was disabled from any gainful employment  (emphasis added) does not lend itself to the inference that there were jobs that [Buffonge] could do. This is especially true considering that Dr. Jacques had filed at least three other reports concluding that Buffonge was fully disabled. 43 The flaws in the Rutchik report are crucial to our analysis for several reasons. The report's mischaracterizations are material, and so it does not provide support for Prudential's decision. Further, the fact that Prudential relied on the Rutchik report at all brings into question the integrity of Prudential's decision-making process in this case. Prudential had before it all of Buffonge's records, and it had to be aware that the Rutchik report misconstrued the conclusions of Buffonge's doctors.