Opinion ID: 1266110
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The State Agency Physicians' Opinions

Text: The ALJ adopted the 2005 findings of the state agency physicians, as well as a state agency psychologist, in finding that Blakley was not disabled. [2] As justification, the ALJ mentions only that [t]he finding that the claimant can perform a range of medium work is consistent with the opinion of the State Agency medical consultants. Certainly, the ALJ's decision to accord greater weight to state agency physicians over Blakley's treating sources was not, by itself, reversible error. In appropriate circumstances, opinions from State agency medical ... consultants... may be entitled to greater weight than the opinions of treating or examining sources. Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at  (July 2, 1996). One such circumstance may occur, for example, when the State agency medical ... consultant's opinion is based on a review of a complete case record that ... provides more detailed and comprehensive information than what was available to the individual's treating source. Id. Here, however, the Agency's non-examining sources offered their opinions, upon which the ALJ relied, on June 30, 2005, and September 21, 2005. Consequently, those non-examining sources did not have the opportunity to review, at minimum, Dr. Kibler's October 2005 assessment, Dr. Kibler's December 2005 restrictions, Dr. Muffly's June 2006 review, and Dr. Raza's psychiatric treatment records. And because much of the over 300 pages of medical evidence reflects ongoing treatment and notes by Blakley's treating sources, we require some indication that the ALJ at least considered these facts before giving greater weight to an opinion that is not `based on a review of a complete case record.' Fisk v. Astrue, 253 Fed.Appx. 580, 585 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at ).