Young v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 9/27/2018. (JLC)
FILED
2018 Sep-27 AM 09:23
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
FREDRICK YOUNG,
)
)
Claimant,
)
)
v.
) Case No: 1:16-cv-1938-KOB
)
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,)
COMMISSIONER,
)
)
Respondent.
)
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on March 16, 2018,
recommending that the court affirm the decision of the Social Security
Commissioner denying disability benefits to the claimant Fredrick Young. (Doc.
12). The claimant filed objections on March 27, 2018. (Doc. 16).
After a de novo review of the entire record in this case, including the Report
and Recommendation, the objections, and the entire administrative and medical
record, the court SUSTAINS the claimant’s objections regarding the ALJ’s failure
to state the weight he gave treating physician Dr. Salser’s medical opinion dated
June 22, 2015 about the claimant’s limp and unbalanced gait. For the following
reasons, the court REJECTS the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and finds that the decision of the Commissioner should be REVERSED and
1
REMANDED on this issue.
On June 22, 2015, Dr. Salser wrote a letter “To Whom It May Concern,”
explaining that he had treated the claimant for the prior two years. Dr. Salser
described the claimant’s past knee injury from 1988 for which he received an
honorable military medical discharge. Dr. Salser stated that “since that time, Mr.
Young has had a limp and an unbalanced gait. This unbalanced gait has likely
been a major contributor to his current chronic lower back pain and degenerative
back disease.” (R. 524). However, the ALJ did not consider Dr. Salser’s letter a
“medical opinion” and specifically found “no treating source opinions in the
record.” That finding was error.
Dr. Salser’s June 22, 2015 letter constituted a medical opinion because it
indicated his judgment about the claimant’s limp and unbalanced gait and the
cause of his continuing chronic back pain. According to 20 C.F.R. §
404.1527(a)(1), “Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources
that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s]
impairment(s), including [his] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [he] can
still do despite impairment(s), and [his] physical or mental restrictions.”1 Dr.
1
For claims filed before March 27, 2017, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 is the applicable
section.
2
Salser’s letter established his opinion, based on his treatment of the claimant for
two years, that the claimant had a limp and unbalanced gait. And Dr. Saler also
rendered his judgment that the claimant’s limp and unbalanced gait from his knee
impairments likely caused his back issues and chronic back pain.
Because Dr. Salser’s June 2015 letter constituted a medical opinion, the law
required the ALJ to state with particularity the weight he gave that opinion. See
Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987) (reversing and remanding
because the ALJ failed to assign weight to various medical opinions); Short v.
Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 581 F. App’x 754, 756 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Without the
statement of weight given to the opinion and the reasons for that weight, it is
impossible for a reviewing court to determine if the ultimate decision on the merits
is rational and supported by substantial evidence.”). The ALJ’s failure to address
Dr. Salser’s opinion or state the weight he gave it was reversible error.
The court is also concerned that Dr. Salser is a treating physician whose
opinion the ALJ must give substantial weight unless he clearly articulates good
cause for giving it less weight. See Sharfarz, 825 F.2d at 280 (The ALJ was
“required to accord considerable weight to [the claimant’s] treating physician
absent good cause for not doing so.”). Instead of assessing any weight to Dr.
Salser’s medical opinion about the claimant’s limp and unbalanced gait, the ALJ
3
ignored that medical opinion.
And the ALJ discredited the claimant’s testimony under oath about his limp
and unbalanced gait because the ALJ personally observed at the hearing that the
claimant’s gait was normal. The ALJ cannot disregard the claimant’s subjective
statements about his symptoms solely on the ALJ’s personal observations, but
should consider those observations in his overall evaluation of the entire record.
See SSR 96-7p (The ALJ is “not free to accept or reject the individual’s
complaints solely on the basis of such personal observations, but should consider
any personal observations in the overall evaluation of the credibility of the
claimant’s statements.”)2
In this case, the ALJ could not have considered his personal observation
along with the entire medical record because he ignored Dr. Salser’s medical
opinion that the claimant in fact had a limp and unbalanced gait. Further, the ALJ
admitted that the claimant walked with a cane at the hearing, so the court is
unclear how the ALJ’s personal observations at the hearing would reflect the
claimant’s true gait without a cane. Dr. Salser, as the claimant’s treating physician
for two years, was in a much better position to make that call. But the ALJ chose
2
Although SSR 16-3p superceded SSR 96-7p effective March 28, 2016, SSR 96-7p was
the controlling regulation when the claimant filed his application on January 23, 2014.
4
to ignore that opinion.
The court finds that the ALJ erred by failing to state with particularity the
weight that he gave Dr. Salser’s medical opinion or articulate the reasons for that
weight. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed and remanded
for action consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
The court will enter a separate Final Order.
DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 2018.
____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?