Carriere v. Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER AND REASONS ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 . IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying Carriere's claim for Disability Benefits and Supplemental Social Security Income Benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act be AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/17/2014.(bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SCOTT M. CARRIERE,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-2781

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant

SECTION “E”

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a report and recommendation1 issued by the Magistrate Judge
recommending that the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying Scott
Carriere's ("Carriere") claim for Disability Benefits and Supplemental Social Security
Income Benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act be affirmed. Carriere timely filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation.2
The Court, after reviewing Carriere's objections, finds no error in the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ
applied the appropriate legal standard and the ALJ's decision to deny Carriere's claim was
based on substantial evidence. The ALJ's decision to give no weight to Carriere's treating
physician was proper because the ALJ found the treating physician's opinion was merely
conclusory and unsupported by the evidence. See Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d 492 (5th Cir.
1999). In declining to give the treating physician's opinion any weight, the ALJ applied the
correct legal standard and considered all of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 1527(d)(2).3

1

R. Doc. 24.

2

R. Doc. 25.

3

The Social Security Regulations require the ALJ to consider the following factors in assessing the
weight to be given to the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the physician's length of treatment of the
claimaint, (2) the physician's frequency of examination, (3) the nature and extent of the treatment
relationship, (4) the support of the physician's opinion afforded by the medical evidence in the record, (5)

1

Carriere argues the ALJ incorrectly substituted the opinion of a non-examining, nontreating physician for that of the treating physician. As Carriere points out, the report of a
non-examining physician does not as a matter of law provide substantial evidence when it
constitutes the sole medical evidence presented or when the non-examining physician
reaches specific medical conclusions that either contradict or are unsupported by findings
made by an examining physician. See Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1023-24 (5th Cir.
1990)(citing Johnson v. Harris, 612 F.2d 993, 996-98 (5th Cir. 1980) and Strickland v.
Harris, 615 F.2d 1103, 1109-10 (5th Cir. 1980)). But the ALJ in this case did not rely solely
on the opinion of the non-examining, non-treating state agency physician in concluding
Carriere was not disabled. Instead, the ALJ considered a wide breadth of evidence,
including the entirety of Carriere's medical records and Carriere's own testimony. Neither
is the non-examining, non-treating state agency physician's opinion contradicted by or
unsupported by the medical evidence. As a result, Carriere's argument fails.
Carriere's objections rely on cases in which there was no evidence to support the
ALJ's conclusions. See Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2007)(finding the ALJ
erred in disregarding the opinion of the claimant's treating physician when "[n]o medical
evidence was introduced to contradict [those] findings."); Williams v. Astrue, 355 Fed.
Appx. 828 (5th Cir. 2009)(concluding that the ALJ erred because there was no evidence
supporting the ALJ's conclusions regarding the claimant's functional capacity). These cases
are distinguishable from the one now before the Court in which the ALJ's findings were
supported by ample record evidence.
Carriere also criticizes the Magistrate Judge for improperly reweighing the evidence

the consistency of the opinion as a whole; and (6) the specialization of the treating physician. 20 C.F.R. §
1527(d)(2).

2

presented to the ALJ. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge did not reweigh the evidence
in the record, but merely explained the medical records the ALJ examined and highlighted
the substantial evidence on which the ALJ's decision was based.
Finally, Carriere argues that the ALJ should have contacted the treating physician
to satisfy any perceived inconsistencies in Carriere's medical records. The ALJ is required
to recontact the treating physician only when there is no relevant evidence from other
treating sources. Jones v. Astrue, 691 F.3d 730, 733 (5th Cir. 2012). The ALJ relied on
medical records from Carriere's various hospital visits, the state agency determination, and
Carriere's own testimony. The record was sufficient to establish Carriere's disability status
and there was no need for the ALJ to recontact Carriere's treating physician.
Carriere has not established error in the ALJ's decision or the Magistrate Judge's
report and recommendation. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation and adopts it as the Court's opinion herein. IT IS
ORDERED that the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying Carriere's
claim for Disability Benefits and Supplemental Social Security Income Benefits under Title
XVI of the Social Security Act be AFFIRMED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of March, 2013.
_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3