10-2006 Allord v. Astrue

Listen to this article

Public Health
Disability benefits

Where the ALJ did not adequately say why he discounted the opinion of a disability applicant’s treating physician, the case must be remanded.

“Allord is correct that the Social Security Administration is bound to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if her ‘opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the applicant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the applicant’s] case record.’ 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If an ALJ does not afford controlling weight to such an opinion, he or she must articulate sufficient reasons for not doing so. Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010). The district court found that the ALJ did not adequately describe why he discounted Dr. Matsakis’s opinion while giving Dr. Hauer’s more weight-especially when Dr. Hauer’s opinion was not based on any treatment of Allord. The district court also found that the ALJ’s erroneous credibility finding regarding Chappell-White further undermined the ALJ’s reasons for discounting Dr. Matsakis’s opinion. These findings provided the impetus for the district court to remand for further proceedings. But the court declined to enter an award of benefits because it noted that contradictory inferences could be drawn from the physicians’ testimony. Allord does not address, let alone refute, the soundness of the district court’s reasoning on this point.”

Affirmed.

10-2006 Allord v. Astrue

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Kanne, J.

Full Text