From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alcantara v. Astrue

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Dec 12, 2007
257 F. App'x 333 (1st Cir. 2007)

Summary

holding it was error to give significant weight to opinion of non-examining reviewing consultant who reviewed only part of medical evidence because evidence not reviewed showed deterioration in claimant's condition.

Summary of this case from McNelley v. Colvin

Opinion

No. 07-1056.

December 12, 2007.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District Of Rhode Island, Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge.

Ronald B. Eskin, on brief, for appellant.

Dulce Donovan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Robert Clark Corrente, United States Attorney, on brief, for appellee.

Before TORRUELLA, LYNCH and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.


After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we remand for further administrative proceedings.

The appellant alleged disability since November 2001, due to depression, anxiety, insomnia, ADHD, diabetes, hypertension and hepatitis C. She was obese, with an eighth-grade education, involving special education classes.

After a March 2004 hearing, the ALJ found that the appellant had severe mental and severe physical impairments that rendered her incapable of her past work. Only his findings concerning her mental capacities are relevant here. The ALJ found that the appellant had moderate limits in social functioning. She could perform light, unskilled work involving occasional interaction with the public, coworkers and supervisors. A VE testified that the capacity for light, unskilled work with moderate limits in social functioning would permit substantial employment. The VE doubted, however, that more severe limitation would permit substantial employment. At step five of the disability process, the ALJ relied upon the finding that the appellant had only moderate limits in social functioning, without other material mental limits, to discharge his burden of showing that she was employable. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. That finding was not supported by substantial evidence.

In finding only moderately limited social functioning and excluding other material mental limitations, the ALJ discounted Treating Psychiatrist Webb's opinion, Therapist Serabian's concordant opinion, and the opinions of consultants DiZio and Killenberg. The ALJ explained that he was relying primarily on the opinion of non-examining, consultant Musiker. The ALJ could not give Musiker's opinion any significant weight. It was the opinion of a reviewing consultant, based on a significantly incomplete record, and it was not well justified. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d). Musiker, reviewing upon reconsideration, considered no more than the first third of the record for the period of alleged disability. His opinion was irrelevant to most of the disability period. Although the ALJ stated that the record underwent no material change, he did not explain his analysis. The record repeatedly indicated that the appellant deteriorated with her parents' deaths. The record upon reconsideration was compiled after her mother's death, but before her father's death. Musiker mentioned no specific medical findings to justify his opinion, but he appears to have been unaware of the mother's death and the issue it raised. Moreover, unlike the record before the ALJ, the record reviewed by Musiker contained no reports from therapists or treating psychiatrists for the period of alleged disability. As a non-examining psychologist, Musiker's opinion merited less prima facie credibility than treating and examining sources, and less credibility than more expert sources. Absent a medical advisor's or consultant's assessment of the full record, the ALJ effectively substituted his own judgment for medical opinion.

The ALJ offered other rationales for discounting the opinions that the appellant was more severely mentally limited, but they do not bear the weight placed upon them. The ALJ ignored Therapist Serabian's opinion because she was a licensed social worker, not an acceptable medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.902, 416.913, 416.927. The ALJ could not simply ignore Serabian's opinion. Although acceptable medical sources are the primary sources of evidence about the severity of impairment and its effect on work abilities, they are not the sole permissible sources of such evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.913(d); 416.929(c)(3). Serabian was a medical source capable of providing evidence about the severity and effects of impairment, as well as a general source of evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.902, 416.912(b), 416.913(d), 416.945(a). The ALJ was required to weigh all of the evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(3), 416.920a (a) (c); 416.927(c).

The ALJ also discounted the appellant's limitations because she neglected prescribed treatment. His reasoning concerning psychiatric treatment is unclear. The appellant did miss therapy appointments in May or June 2003. Providence Center records stated, however, that she obtained interim treatment at West Bay Psychiatry. Irrespective, the rationale for requiring compliance with medical advice is not to punish minor lapses, but to ensure that claimants do what they can to restore capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.930(a). Furthermore, non-compliance may be excused for good cause. 20 C.F.R. § 416.930(b) (c). At the time of the missed appointments, the appellant's therapist and gastroenterologist reported that she was deteriorating with chaotic life circumstances. The ALJ failed to explain his analysis of these issues.

The ALJ also mentioned limited episodes of improvement and favorable indicia of general functioning. A brief reprieve would not render the appellant able-bodied. She was entitled to benefits if any medically-determinable, severe impairment prevented her from working for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 20 C.F.R. § 416.905. She also needed several, specific, mental capacities to work. The ALJ did not explain how assessments of her general level of functioning were relevant to her specific abilities to tolerate stress, supervision, coworkers and others.

We vacate the district court judgment and remand to the district court with direction to remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Vacated and remanded.


Summaries of

Alcantara v. Astrue

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Dec 12, 2007
257 F. App'x 333 (1st Cir. 2007)

holding it was error to give significant weight to opinion of non-examining reviewing consultant who reviewed only part of medical evidence because evidence not reviewed showed deterioration in claimant's condition.

Summary of this case from McNelley v. Colvin

holding that consulting psychologist's opinion not entitled to significant weight where claimant's condition subsequently deteriorated and thus the opinion was based on a "significantly incomplete record"

Summary of this case from Cepeda ex rel. E.G. v. Berryhill

holding that the ALJ could not give significant weight to a non-examining consultant because the record was significantly incomplete and the opinion was not well justified

Summary of this case from Coleman v. Colvin

holding that ALJ “could not simply ignore Serabian's opinion,” but, rather, was “required to weigh all of the evidence” (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 416.920a & (c); 416.927(c))

Summary of this case from Hidalgo-Rosa v. Colvin

In Alcantara, for example, the medical opinion predated the death of the plaintiff's father, and therefore reached the conclusion that the plaintiff did not suffer from severe mental limitations without considering medical evidence of the plaintiff's deteriorating mental condition after that traumatic event.

Summary of this case from Dicologero v. Saul

explaining that ALJ erred by simply stating that "the record underwent no material change" without explaining his analysis

Summary of this case from Venus v. Berryhill

In Alcantara, the agency nonexamining consultant considered no more than the first third of the record for the period of alleged disability, missing later-submitted evidence repeatedly indicating that the claimant had deteriorated with her parents' deaths.

Summary of this case from John M. v. Berryhill

describing records of a claimant's condition deteriorating upon her parent's death as material

Summary of this case from Diggett v. Berryhill

noting that the ALJ found no material change in the record

Summary of this case from Diggett v. Berryhill

remanding for further proceedings where ALJ relied on a reviewing consultant's opinion based on incomplete record, and finding "[a]bsent a medical advisor's or consultant's assessment of the full record, the ALJ effectively substituted his own judgment for medical opinion."

Summary of this case from Franceschi v. Colvin

nonexamining psychologist's opinion not due significant weight where claimant's condition subsequently deteriorated and thus his opinion was based on "significantly incomplete record"

Summary of this case from Verner v. Colvin

examining opinions merit more prima facie credibility than non-examining sources

Summary of this case from Larocque v. Colvin

In Alcantra v. Astrue, 257 Fed. App'x 333, 334, 2007 WL 4328148, at **1 (1st Cir. Dec. 12, 2007), the First Circuit vacated a judgment for the commissioner where the administrative law judge had discounted the opinions of two treating sources and two consultants in favor of the opinion of one non-examining consultant who reviewed "no more than the first third of the record," which included no reports from therapists or treating psychiatrists.

Summary of this case from Swormstedt v. Colvin

In Alcantara, the ALJ discounted the concurring opinions of the claimant's treating psychiatrist, her therapist and two consultants in favor of the opinion of a reviewing, non-examining psychologist who "considered no more than the first third of the record for the period of alleged disability [and whose] opinion was irrelevant to most of the disability period."

Summary of this case from King v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

In Alcantara, the First Circuit remanded where the ALJ relied "primarily" on the opinion of one non-examining consultant and discounted the opinions of two other non-examining consultants, a treating psychiatrist and a therapist.

Summary of this case from Giusti v. Astrue

observing that "the record repeatedly indicated that the [claimant] deteriorated"

Summary of this case from Jones v. Astrue

In Alcantara, the administrative record indicated that the claimant's condition deteriorated after the death of her parents in a fairly short time span.

Summary of this case from Marczyk v. Astrue
Case details for

Alcantara v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:Janine ALCANTARA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Date published: Dec 12, 2007

Citations

257 F. App'x 333 (1st Cir. 2007)

Citing Cases

Giandomenico v. U.S. Soc. Sec. Admin.

The opinion of a reviewing consultant based on a "significantly incomplete record" cannot provide substantial…

King v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

However, both agency doctors anticipated that the plaintiff would improve post his knee surgeries (TR at 422,…