Opinion ID: 525203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ALJ's Consideration of the Medical Evidence.

Text: 24 Appellant raises two objections of substance to the ALJ's evaluation of the evidence. 25 1. Ability to Lift. The ALJ found that appellant could perform sedentary work, defined to include the lifting [of] no more than 10 pounds, 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.1567(a), 416.967(a), and even light work, which requires the lifting [of] no more than 20 pounds, 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.1567(b), 416.967(b). Appellant, however, points to the reports of Dr. Goltz, stating that he cannot lift more than 10 pounds, and of Dr. Liu, suggesting that he simply avoid lifting. We find no fault in the ALJ's decision to credit instead appellant's own acknowledgment, at the hearing, that he could lift and raise up to 20 pounds. 26 At the same time, the ALJ's use of appellant's remark in isolation from its context is not entirely true to its meaning. Appellant said: I can raise [20 pounds] but I can't hold it--testimony consistent with Dr. Liu's 1985 notation that appellant ha[d] started to drop objects. Nonetheless, the ALJ did not develop further evidence that might more precisely identify the extent of appellant's ability to hold objects. Nor did he relate appellant's statement in the hypotheticals presented to the vocational expert; thus, although the expert was present for Simms's testimony, we have no way of knowing whether he independently recalled, credited, and factored in that testimony when he stated that appellant could perform sedentary work. As a result, the vocational expert may have opined that appellant could do certain jobs that, in fact, entail more carrying than he is able to do. The record is simply inadequate to reject appellant's claim that he would be worthless in the light work occupations that the vocational expert identified as suitable for him, viz., service station manager [and] auto station attendant (without repairs)--the latter of which entails pumping gas, cleaning windshields, determining the need for oil, tire pressure and that type of thing. 27 The ALJ's incomplete account of appellant's testimony also calls into question the vocational expert's conclusion that appellant could do jobs involving only sedentary work. Such jobs may entail not only lifting up to 10 pounds but also carrying articles such as files, ledgers, and small tools. 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.1567(a), 416.967(a). Since the ALJ did not explore the extent of appellant's ability to hold and to carry objects, we have no basis in the record upon which to evaluate the ALJ's conclusion, based upon the vocational expert's opinion, that appellant could work as an auto rental clerk and dispatcher. In this respect, too, further proceedings are needed on remand. 28 2. Evidence from Treating Physicians. Appellant draws attention to the opinion of one of his treating physicians, Dr. Liberman, that he has been totally disabled since June 1984. We find no fault in the ALJ's decision to discount this opinion, however, notwithstanding the deference usually owed to a treating physician. Dr. Liberman based his conclusion primarily upon appellant's having very little use of the left arm. The ALJ related that underlying fact to the vocational expert, who, in turn, took it into account in identifying jobs appellant might hold. Second, we note, as did the ALJ, that Dr. Liberman had only recently begun to treat appellant, putting him on the same footing as the government's consulting physicians, Drs. Harris and Lossing, both of whom suggested that appellant is not disabled. 29 The ALJ, however, offered no reason for crediting the consulting physicians over Dr. Liu, who had examined appellant regularly since 1978. Although Dr. Lossing reported that electromyogram tests performed on appellant in June 1986 were normal and rule[d] out carpal tunnel syndrome and cervical radiculopathy, Dr. Liu, that same month, opined that appellant suffered from a permanent and major disability. In December 1984, a specialist to whom Dr. Liu referred appellant for electromyogram tests got results compatible with mild C-7 radiculopathy and early carpal tunnel syndrome. 30 In addition, Dr. Liu had opined as early as 1978 that the reason for the prolongation of [appellant's] subjective complaints [of pain] is that the right upper extremity and right shoulder blade are much more hypertrophied than the left, due to the fact that [appellant] has the amputated left upper extremity, and most of his work, therefore, is done with the right extremity. The ALJ made no mention of this opinion, which, if noticed, could have affected his evaluation of the objective medical evidence as a factor in discounting appellant's claim to experience, in the ALJ's words, constant and severe ... upper right extremity pain and weakness. On remand, the ALJ should explain what weight he attaches to Dr. Liu's conclusions, or if he attaches none, his reasons therefor. 31