Opinion ID: 160428
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to follow Dr. Goodman’s PRT form

Text: Appellant’s argument on the first point lacks merit, for at least two reasons. First, the ALJ has sole responsibility for determining appellant’s RFC, including his mental RFC, based upon the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at -5. Second, the PRT form is a psychiatrist’s opinion, and the ALJ is not bound by conclusions expressed in such an opinion to the extent those conclusions are inconsistent with the psychiatrist’s own clinical findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”); cf. Castellano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1029 (10th Cir. 1994) (stating even treating physician’s opinion may be rejected if not supported by specific findings or the evidence). Dr. Goodman’s underlying findings concerning the lack of effect of appellant’s bipolar disorder on his ability to work belie his conclusion that -8- appellant “often” had deficiencies of concentration, persistence or pace that would result in his inability to complete tasks in a timely manner. Because of this inconsistency between Dr. Goodman’s PRT and his clinical findings, the ALJ permissibly departed from the conclusions reached on Dr. Goodman’s PRT form. B. Failure to distinguish Dr. Goodman’s PRT results Even if the ALJ was free to disregard Dr. Goodman’s opinion, however, appellant argues that he could do so only by providing a reasoned explanation. Appellant asserts that he failed to provide such an explanation, requiring reversal. Where an ALJ’s conclusions concerning a claimant’s abilities, expressed on the PRT form, differ dramatically from those reached by a treating physician, an explanation is required. See Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1024 (10th Cir. 1996). This is a corollary of the requirement that conclusions reached on the PRT be supported by substantial evidence. See Washington, 37 F.3d at 1442. Dr. Goodman was an examining, rather than a treating physician. This suggests that the duty to explain any discrepancy was less serious in his case than in Winfrey or Washington. Here, the ALJ’s conclusions on the PRT form did not differ dramatically from those reached by Dr. Goodman. Although the ALJ did not state expressly his reasons for rejecting Dr. Goodman’s conclusions, he did note appellant’s statement to Dr. Goodman that his psychological problems did not prevent him -9- from working. The ALJ also specifically noted three activities appellant was able to do that were inconsistent with his alleged inability to concentrate: reading, following television shows, and going to the library. Appellant argues, however, that the activities mentioned by the ALJ are substantively insufficient to provide a reason for departing from Dr. Goodman’s conclusion that he lacks the ability to concentrate. We disagree. First, as noted above, Dr. Goodman’s conclusion about concentration on the PRT form lacks support from confirmatory findings. Second, a claimant’s daily activities are properly considered when evaluating the severity of his alleged nonexertional impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). Third, the ALJ stated that he had considered all the evidence in this case when reaching the conclusions on his PRT form, and we must presume that such evidence included Dr. Goodman’s underlying findings concerning the lack of effect of appellant’s bipolar disorder on his ability to go back to work. We conclude that the ALJ provided sufficient rationale for departing from Dr. Goodman’s conclusion on the PRT form.