Opinion ID: 603139
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Doctors' Reports

Text: 9 The ALJ also found that a preponderance of the evidence weighed against invoking the presumption under (a)(4). It was Dr. Paranthaman's report that primarily influenced the ALJ. Because (a)(4) requires any other medical evidence to tend to prove or disprove the presence of a totally disabling respiratory condition, Dr. Miller's and Dr. Schmidt's reports were properly excluded. Neither was relevant to the issue. Dr. Miller's report did not make a finding of respiratory capacity, and Dr. Schmidt's report did not conclude which of Stanley's diseases caused his disability. 10 The ALJ was thus left with two reports. Although he cited the currency of Dr. Paranthaman's report, this was not an invocation of the later evidence is better rule. Rather, the currency of the report is an appropriate consideration in the balancing of medical reports. See Robinson v. Missouri Mining Co., 955 F.2d 1181, 1184 (8th Cir. 1992). ([T]he ALJ certainly should consider the temporal proximity of conflicting test results in determining which of two different medical opinions to credit.) (citing Mullins, 484 U.S. at 151-52). Although the ALJ erred when he discredited Dr. Smiddy's report because of the ALJ's finding that the opinion was based on an unreliable ventilatory study, 2 ample other evidence supports the higher credibility of Dr. Paranthaman's report and opinion. First, as the ALJ reasoned, Dr. Paranthaman's report was based on more objective data. Second, although not addressed by the ALJ, Dr. Paranthaman's credentials are very extensive. The record does not disclose Dr. Smiddy's credentials. Therefore, it is unclear whether the ALJ could properly rely on Dr. Smiddy's opinion. See Dotson v. Peabody Coal Co., 846 F.2d 1134, 1137-38 (7th Cir. 1988) (irrational for ALJ to find physician qualified when credentials are not in the record). However, even if Dr. Smiddy was credible, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's decision to not invoke the interim presumption under (a)(4). Therefore, the ALJ's decision, affirmed by the Board, must be upheld.