Opinion ID: 166408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: t he t reating p hysician r ule

Text: An ALJ is not required to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if the opinion is not “‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’” or “consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Watkins v. Barnhart , 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at ). But even if a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it is still entitled to deference and must be weighed in light of the following factors: “(1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) -2- other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion.” Branum v. Barnhart , 385 F.3d 1268, 1275 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Watkins , 350 F.3d at 1301); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). Tom argues that the ALJ disregarded the medical source statement of treating physician Victoria Pardue, D.O. Specifically, Tom challenges the ALJ’s reliance on a consulting physician’s opinion and contests the ALJ’s determinations that Dr. Pardue has not provided much treatment for Tom’s back and lower extremity pain, that Dr. Pardue’s medical source statement was inconsistent with the other medical evidence and Tom’s pre-operative activities, and that Dr. Pardue may have responded sympathetically to Tom’s statement that she was “considering working on getting her disability,” Aplt. App. at 189. Tom also contends that the ALJ neither acknowledged Dr. Pardue’s comments on the medical source statement form nor articulated the weight he afforded Dr. Pardue’s opinion after finding it non-controlling. Finally, Tom contends that her post-surgery back pain complaints demonstrate that the laminectomy/discectomy performed by orthopedic specialist S. Drew Temple, M.D., failed to resolve her back problems. We conclude that the ALJ did not err in rejecting Dr. Pardue’s opinion as controlling. The limitations opined by Dr. Pardue are neither supported by diagnostic techniques nor consistent with the substantial evidence in the record. -3- Further, the ALJ’s reasons for not giving Dr. Pardue’s opinion “as much weight as the other evidence of record,” Aplt. App. at 26, are in accordance with the medical-opinion evaluation factors described in Branum . We do note, however, that the ALJ improperly questioned Dr. Pardue’s impartiality. See Frey v. Bowen , 816 F.2d 508, 515 (10th Cir. 1987) (stating that a physician’s tendency to advocate a patient’s cause is generally an insufficient reason to reject that physician’s medical opinion). Nevertheless, that error is not fatal to the ALJ’s ultimate discounting of Dr. Pardue’s opinion, given that the ALJ articulated other legitimate reasons to discount Dr. Pardue’s opinion.