01-1635 Dixon v. Massanari

Listen to this article

“Here, ALJ Kelly decided not to give Voss’ opinion controlling weight because she seriously doubted its credibility. We do not overturn an ALJ’s credibility determinations unless they are ‘patently wrong.’ See id. at 887. ALJ Kelly determined that Voss was not completely objective – that she gave Dixon the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. For example, Voss termed Dixon’s arthritis ‘very severe’ and prescribed a cane, even though X rays failed to show any serious degenerative changes and orthopedic specialists noted that Dixon had a fairly good range of motion and muscle strength. Additionally, Voss accepted Dixon’s complaints about blurred vision at face value, even though repeated opthalmology exams failed to show any significant abnormalities. Finally, ALJ Kelly questioned the validity of Voss’ statement that Dixon would miss more than 20 days of work per year. As we just noted, Voss expressed this opinion by writing ‘yes’ next to a question that Dixon’s attorney had pre-typed. Voss did not elaborate on the basis for this opinion. Thus, because she supported it with substantial evidence, the ALJ was not patently wrong in determining that Voss’ opinion was not, given all the other facts, entitled to controlling weight.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Gorence, Mag. J., Evans, J.