Court Opinion

ID: 9489089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:05:28.415884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:18.893455
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I would reverse and remand this case for further proceedings for two reasons. First, I believe the ALJ erred in discrediting Dr. Miller’s opinion while accepting that of a consulting physician who did not examine Clark. We have held that “[t]he opinion of a treating physician is entitled to great weight ‘unless it is unsupported by medically acceptable clinical or diagnostic data.’ ” Ghant v. Bowen 930 F.2d 633, 639 (8th Cir.1991) (quoting Kirby v. Sullivan 923 F.2d 1323, 1328 (8th Cir.1991)).
After the first hearing, the ALJ ordered a consultative examination, including x-rays, to be performed by Dr. Miller. Dr. Miller reported that Clark had difficulty walking, sitting, or standing for longer than thirty minutes; had limited range of motion in his neck, shoulder, and lumbar spine; and had severe pain limiting his ability to do much of anything. The ALJ, however, discounted Dr. Miller’s opinions for the very reason we ordinarily accord the treating physician’s opinion greater weight than the opinions of other doctors in the ease: Dr. Miller knew the patient. See Thomas v. Sullivan, 928 F.2d 255, 259 & n. 3 (8th Cir.1991) (quoting Schisler v. Heckler, 787 F.2d 76, 81 (2d Cir.1986) (“the treating physician is usually more familiar with a claimant’s medical condition than are other physicians”)). I fail to understand why the ALJ ordered Dr. Miller to perform the examination and then discounted his findings because he was “under pressure to support patients in their quest” for benefits. Moreover, Dr. Miller did not rely only on subjective complaints in reaching his conclusions. The question is whether the medically acceptable clinical data contradicts Dr. Miller’s opinions. None of the consultative physicians thought Clark was a malingerer; some suggested Clark’s symptoms could represent early-stage peripheral neuropathy.
Second, because the standing/walking/movement restrictions which Dr. Miller found following his consultative examination were not considered in the hypothetical question, I believe the hypothetical did not precisely describe Clark’s impairments. See Whitmore v. Bowen, 785 F.2d 262, 263 (8th Cir.1986) (for vocational expert’s opinion to *205qualify as substantial evidence, hypothetical question must precisely describe claimant’s impairments).
Accordingly, I dissent.