Opinion ID: 49938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Dr. Abdulla’s Opinion Letters

Text: Next, Osborn argues that the ALJ improperly rejected Abdulla’s two, separate opinions concluding that he was 100% medically disabled. As to the first opinion, Osborn argues that the district court improperly dismissed it because it failed to offer a diagnosis for any of Osborn’s ailments and the district court could have contacted Abdulla for additional information. Moreover, he argues that Abdulla’s second letter explained the diagnoses and was consistent with the original letter. Second, Osborn argues that Abdulla’s opinions were not inconsistent or in conflict with the opinions of Drs. DeRossett and Kennebrew because Abdulla’s opinion came before Osborn underwent surgery for his back and 27 treatment for his headaches. Osborn further argues that no doctor who examined Osborn opined that, pre-fusion surgery, he was able to work. “The law of this circuit is clear that the testimony of a treating physician must be given substantial or considerable weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary.” Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440. “The ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error.” Id. We have found “good cause” to exist where the doctor’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence, or where the evidence supported a contrary finding. Id. We have also held that a treating physician’s report may be discounted when it is not accompanied by objective medical evidence or is wholly conclusory. Edwards, 937 F.2d at 983. Here, Dr. Abdulla submitted two letters, the first in November 2002, one month after Osborn filed his disability claim, stating that, although Osborn did not have a single disabling condition, the constellation of his medical problems rendered him 100% “medically disabled.” Abdulla did not identify any conditions, nor did he state what, if any, functions Osborn could perform or what his specific limitations were. The second letter was written in May 2003, and Abdulla at that time wrote that Osborn suffered from lumbosacral radiculitis, severe intractable migraines, HTN, chronic (idiopathic) abdominal pain, chronic pain syndrome, and 28 chronic fatigue syndrome. Without so much as indicating the symptoms, effects, limitations, or otherwise describing what functions Osborn could perform, Abdulla again concluded that Osborn was, in his opinion, completely disabled. The ALJ specifically found that Abdulla’s opinions were entitled to no more than minimal weight and not controlling. As to the November 2002 letter, the ALJ found that, because Abdulla did not even have a diagnosis of Osborn’s ailments, he could not have made a medical or legal finding of disability. As to the May 2003 letter, the ALJ found that Dr. Kinnebrew’s records indicate that Osborn was doing well post-surgery. Regarding the headaches, the ALJ found that Dr. DeRossett had treated the headaches and did not believe them to be disabling. The ALJ found no evidence in the record supporting Abdulla’s opinion, and, therefore, found Kinnebrew, DeRossett, and the state agency determinations more persuasive. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings. As noted above, Abdulla’s opinion in this case was nothing more than a conclusory statement unaccompanied by objective medical evidence, and, therefore, not entitled to the weight ordinarily given to a treating physician. Edwards, 937 F.2d at 583. Indeed, while the medical records in this case make clear that Osborn suffered from degenerative disc disease, and while Abdulla’s second letter certainly reflects several diagnoses, it does not indicate in any way the limitations 29 these diagnoses placed on Osborn’s ability to work, a requisite to a finding of disability. McCruter, 791 F.2d at 1547 (“the ‘severity’ of a medically ascertained disability must be measured in terms of its effect upon ability to work, and not simply in terms of deviation from purely medical standards of bodily perfection or normality”); see also Higgs, 880 F.2d at 863 (persuasively noting that a diagnosis of a condition says nothing about the condition’s severity). While we think the ALJ could have spent more time discussing pre-fusion surgery medical accounts, Osborn had the burden of proof with respect to proving disability, and although he argues in his brief that “no doctor who examined [him] agreed with the ALJ and opined he was able to work before fusion surgery,” his argument actually undermines his appeal. In reality, no doctor who examined Osborn opined that he was not able to work before surgery. However, the state agency assessment, done pre-surgery, found that Osborn could perform a light level of work. Another state evaluation observed no difficulties. The closest thing to a limitation was a pre-surgery evaluation by Dr. Stefanis, who observed that Osborn had a “slow gait,” favoring his left leg over his right. In and of itself, that observation does not provide any evidence of a work-related limitation. A couple of months later, however, Michelle Martin observed Osborn walking with normal gait. 30 In sum, Osborn had the burden of proving he was disabled, but the only medical evidence supporting his claim, other than his subjective complaints, was the conclusory opinion of Dr. Abdulla. Osborn’s medical records reveal only diagnoses, not reasoned and medically-supported opinions detailing Osborn’s work limitations or limited functions, and, therefore, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to give minimal weight to Abdulla’s opinion and more weight to the state agency’s evaluation. Osborn had the burden of proof, and although he could have sought a statement from one of his other treating physicians regarding his limitations and functional deficiencies, he did not. Therefore, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings.