The federal magistrate judge’s opinion noted that the ALJ
found that the opinions of Dr. Ford were internally inconsistent and
inconsistent with treating notes. The
ALJ indicated that the psychologist had concluded that the claimant was
compliant with medication and was stable on medication.
With respect to internal inconsistency, the court found that:
“Essentially, the ALJ compared two different areas of functioning and found an
inconsistency rather than comparing the same area of functioning in both
opinions. Based on this alleged inconsistency, the ALJ appears to have rejected
Dr. Ford’s opinion as a whole. The Court finds that the decision’s reasoning
fails to satisfy the ‘good reasons’ requirement as it is simply inaccurate.”
The court stated: “If Dr. Ford’s opinions are inconsistent
with other portions of his treatment notes, the decision fails to offer
specifics.”
As to the claimant’s being stable with medication, the court
pointed out that the observation was made, not by Dr. Ford, but by another
doctor who was treating the claimant for physical problems.
The court concluded that “a treatment note indicating that Kiefer was
‘stable’ does not constitute a ‘good reason’ to reject the opinion of a treating
psychologist regarding the claimant’s functional limitations.” The district court magistrate judge stated: “the observation that Kiefer was ‘stable’ is of rather limited utility in the disability context. . . . ‘Stable’ is a medical term that simply means a condition is neither better nor worse.” (Citations omitted.)
The ALJ decision was remanded.
Kiefer v. Commissioner of Social Security, Case No.
5:13-cv-00679 (D. N.D. Ohio, E. Div., Jan. 8, 2014).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12690764148485256603&q=social+security&hl=en&as_sdt=40000003&as_ylo=2014
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment. Comments may be edited. Only general interest comments will be posted. Please do not include personally identifiable information about anyone's actual Social Security case in your comments.