Court Opinion

ID: 9472176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:52:04.166188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:47.386708
License: Public Domain

JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the remand fashioned by the majority and write separately to record my own concern with this case. It has gone on much too long and the preferred course would be to either affirm or reverse— granting benefits. However, under the circumstances outlined by Judge Becker, there does not appear to be any sound choice other than that which the majority has adopted.
Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700 (3d Cir.1981) does require a statement by the ALJ in explanation — one way or the other — of his treatment of the report of Dr. Barolo and of the examination by Dr. Bell. And since the case must go back, the matter of the stale reports by the three doctors who never saw John Wier should get careful review and explanation.
Were it not for the Cotter problem I would hold that these three reports should *965have been given no weight and I would reverse, directing benefits.