Price v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Bobette Price challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. Price alleged disability beginning April 10, 2010. After an earlier court remand, Administrative Law Judge Miriam Shire again found that Price was not disabled and retained the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work as a telephone operator.

Price and the Commissioner filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. Price argued that the administrative law judge improperly applied the treating-physician rule, failed to consider her fatigue and medication side effects, and wrongly found that she could work as a telephone operator.

Court’s analysis

The treating-physician rule generally requires an administrative law judge to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported by accepted medical techniques and consistent with the record. If the administrative law judge declines to do so, the judge must provide good reasons and consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

The court found that the administrative law judge did not explicitly consider those factors when discounting opinions from Dr. Deborah Shpolyansky. But the court held that any error concerning Dr. Shpolyansky’s opinions was harmless. Her opinion that Price could not work was an issue reserved to the Commissioner, and her physical limitations largely matched the restrictions the administrative law judge adopted for Price’s ability to sit, stand, and walk.

The court reached a different conclusion concerning Dr. Kingsley Nwokeji. Dr. Nwokeji co-signed medical statements concerning Price’s mental limitations in 2014 and 2017. Although the record did not clearly establish the full length and nature of his treatment relationship with Price, the court concluded that he appeared to qualify as a treating physician. The administrative law judge did not consider the required factors and should have sought additional information about Dr. Nwokeji’s role in Price’s care.

The court also held that the administrative law judge did not provide good reasons for discounting Dr. Nwokeji’s opinions. A perceived conflict between the opinions and Global Assessment of Functioning scores was insufficient because such scores have limited value in disability cases. The administrative law judge also should have sought additional medical information rather than rejecting the opinions as unsupported or conclusory.

The error was not harmless. Dr. Nwokeji opined that Price’s impairments would cause her to miss work about three times per month. A vocational expert testified that missing more than one day of work per month would be unacceptable for Price’s past work as a telephone operator. If Dr. Nwokeji’s opinion were credited, the administrative law judge might find that Price could not perform that work and would then need to consider whether she could perform another job existing in the national economy.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Price’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and order. The court did not decide that Price was entitled to benefits.