Baird v. Social Security Administration
Filing
20
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18 DENYING Plaintiff's motion 14 for summary judgment and GRANTING Defendant's motion 16 for summary judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 6/2/14.(jjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHERYL ANN BAIRD
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 13-0825
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
SECTION: R
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Sheryl Ann Baird objects to Magistrate Judge Michael
North's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which recommends that
plaintiff's complaint under the Social Security Act be dismissed.
Having reviewed de novo the record, the Magistrate's R&R,1 the
plaintiff's objections thereto,2 and the applicable law, the Court
agrees with Judge North's recommendation and adopts the R&R as its
opinion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for
summary
judgment3
and
GRANTS
defendant's
motion
for
summary
judgment.4
Plaintiff objects to three aspects of Judge North's R&R: his
statement that checklist opinions are generally looked on with
disfavor; his failure to evaluate the treating physician's opinion
using the six factors enumerated in Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448
1
R. Doc. 18.
2
R. Doc. 29.
3
R. Doc. 14.
4
R. Doc. 16.
(5th Cir. 2000); and his observation that "the timing of the
checklist form in relation to the administrative hearing . . .
casts doubt on its evidentiary value."5
The Court finds these objections to be without merit. First,
it is well established that "checklist opinions are unworthy of
credence
when
they
are
not
adequately
supported
by
or
are
inconsistent with the medical records." Haynes v. Astrue, Civil
Action No. 11-2289, 2012 WL 3860467, at *15 (E.D. La. July 23,
2012) (collecting cases), adopted, 2012 WL 3863171 (E.D. La. Sep.
5, 2012), aff'd sub nom Haynes v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 519 F. App'x
258 (5th Cir. 2013). Here, as the opinions of the ALJ and the
Magistrate exhaustively explain, the conclusions that Dr. Prasad
reaches in his checklist form are not consistent with the other
medical evidence in the record, and hence those conclusions are
entitled to little weight. See id.; cf. Warncke v. Harris, 619 F.2d
412, 417 (5th
Cir. 1980) ("brief and conclusory" statement from
physician that was "unsupported by any recitation of medical
findings
or
other
relevant
factors"
was
entitled
to
little
evidentiary weight).
Second, the ALJ is not required to analyze the treating
physician's views under the six-factor test set forth in Newton if
there is "reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining
physician
5
controverting
the
claimant's
R. Doc. 18 at 27.
2
treating
specialist."
Newton, 209 F.3d at 453; see also Rollins v. Astrue, 464 F. App'x
353, 358 (5th Cir. 2012) ("[W]here there is reliable medical
evidence from a treating or examining physician that controverts
the claimant's physician, the detailed inquiry of each factor . .
. is unnecessary."); Qualls v. Astrue, 339 F. App'x 461, 466-67
(5th Cir. 2009) (same); Walker v. Barnhart, 158 F. App'x 534, 535
(5th Cir. 2005) (same). Here, the record does contain evidence from
other examining physicians, such as Dr. Higgins, and so the ALJ was
not required to undertake the six-factor inquiry.
Third, the ALJ was entitled to accord less weight to Dr.
Prasad's checklist form in light of the fact that it was completed
shortly before the administrative hearing. See Haynes, 2012 WL
3860467, at *15. Plaintiff cites no authority to the contrary.
Indeed, as plaintiff herself notes, Dr. Prasad had been treating
the plaintiff for over a year before the hearing, and he had
compiled a substantial quantity of contemporaneous treatment notes.
The ALJ properly accorded some weight to that contemporaneous
evidence and little weight to the conclusory checklist form.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2nd day of June, 2014.
__
_________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?