Castellano v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 93-2288
Citation | 26 F.3d 1027 |
Decision Date | 17 June 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 93-2288,93-2288 |
Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 14129B George CASTELLANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
James G. Chakeres, Albuquerque, NM, for plaintiff-appellant.
John J. Kelly, U.S. Atty., Gayla Fuller, Chief Counsel, Region VI, Christopher Carillo, Lead Atty., Dallas, TX, for defendant-appellee.
Before ANDERSON and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and LUNGSTRUM, * District Judge.
Plaintiff George Castellano appeals from an order of the district court affirming the Secretary's decision denying him Social Security disability benefits. We affirm. 1
Plaintiff applied for benefits alleging disability as of September 1987. Plaintiff claimed he was disabled due to cervical degenerative disc disease and cervical, thoracic, and lumbar strain with resulting myofascial pain. The administrative law judge (ALJ) denied benefits at step five, see Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir.1988), holding that plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of light and sedentary work.
On appeal, plaintiff argues the medical evidence does show that he is disabled, particularly because his treating physician found that plaintiff's impairment was equal to a listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404, Subpt.P, App. 1, Sec. 1.05 A and C. Plaintiff also argues the ALJ substituted his opinion for that of the treating physician's and the ALJ erred in applying the grids because plaintiff's pain is disabling.
We review the Secretary's decision to determine whether her factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record viewed as a whole and whether she applied the correct legal standards. See Andrade v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 985 F.2d 1045, 1047 (10th Cir.1993). Substantial evidence is " 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' " Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 216, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). We do not reweigh the evidence. Hamilton v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 961 F.2d 1495, 1498 (10th Cir.1992).
Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in not crediting his treating physician's opinion, expressed in a letter to counsel, that plaintiff was totally disabled at step three. In 1991, the Secretary adopted new regulations addressing the weight the Secretary will give to opinions proffered by a treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.1527, 416.927. A treating physician may offer an opinion which reflects a judgment about the nature and severity of the claimant's impairments including the claimant's symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, and any physical or mental restrictions. See id. Secs. 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2). The Secretary will give controlling weight to that type of opinion if it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See id. Secs. 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). A treating physician may also proffer an opinion that a claimant is totally disabled. That opinion is not dispositive because final responsibility for determining the ultimate issue of disability is reserved to the Secretary. Id. Secs. 404.1527(e)(2), 416.927(e)(2).
In contrast to the situation in the Second Circuit, see Schisler v. Sullivan, 3 F.3d 563, 568 (2d Cir.1993) ( ), in this circuit the regulations have merely codified existing law. See Sorenson v. Bowen, 888 F.2d 706, 711 (10th Cir.1989) ( ), Williams, 844 F.2d at 758 ( ). 2
The treating physician opined that plaintiff was totally disabled at step three. Clearly, this opinion is not binding on the Secretary in making his ultimate determination of disability. Further, the treating physician's opinion that plaintiff's physical problems are severe and disabling is also not supported by the record.
A treating physician's opinion may be rejected if his conclusions are not supported by specific findings. See 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1527(d); Hamilton, 961 F.2d at 1498. The ALJ rejected the treating physician's opinion here because the treating physician's own office records did not support his later expressed opinion that plaintiff was totally disabled. The treating physician did not suggest plaintiff's condition had deteriorated since his last examination of plaintiff when he had opined that plaintiff could return to some kind of light or sedentary work. Cf. Harris v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 821 F.2d 541, 544 (10th Cir.1987) ( ). Instead, the physician indicated plaintiff's condition had not changed since he had first begun treating him. Appellant's App. at 113.
The treating physician's office notes are supported by objective medical evidence (X-rays have identified no abnormality) and plaintiff's testimony. The office notes show the treating...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cherry v. Barnhart
...has applied the correct legal standards. Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1019 (10th Cir.1996); Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir.1994). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a ......
-
Anderson v. Apfel
...and severity of a claimant's impairments." Adams v. Chater, 93 F.3d 712, 714 (10th Cir.1996). See Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1029 (10th Cir.1994). "The [Commissioner] must give substantial weight to the evidence and opinion of the claimant's treating phy......
-
Cuevas v. Apfel
...residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2); Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1029 (10th Cir. 1994); Davis v. Apfel, 40 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1266 (D. Kan. Regarding his mental condition, the plaintiff asserts that be......
-
Jesse v. Barnhart
...and Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1. See White v. Massanari, 271 F.3d 1256, 1257 (10th Cir.2001) (citing Castellano v. Sec'y of Health & Human Services, 26 F.3d 1027, 1029 (10th Cir.1994)). 2. Id. (quoting Castellano, 26 F.3d at 1028). 3. Id. 4. Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir.198......
-
Case survey
...issue of disability.” White v. Massanari , 271 F.3d 1256, 1259 (10th Cir. 2001), citing Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs ., 26 F.3d 1027, 1029 (10th Cir. 1994). (2) A Colorado district court stated that although a treating physician finding of total disability is not binding,......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...absence of significant pain medication.” Kirby v. Callahan , 975 F. Supp. 1290, 1292 (D. Kan. 1997), citing Castellano v. Sec’y of HHS , 26 F.3d 1027, 1029 (10 th Cir. 1994); Hargis v. Sullivan , 945 F.2d 1482 (10 th Cir. 1991). (3) The court determined that the record supported the ALJ’s a......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...of disability.” White v. Massanari , 271 F.3d 1256, 1259 (10 th Cir. 2001), citing Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs ., 26 F.3d 1027, 1029 (10 th Cir. 1994). (2) A Colorado district court stated that although a treating physician finding of total disability is not binding, the......
-
Table of Cases
...(10th Cir. 1991), § 204.2 Cass v. Shalala , 8 F.3d 552, 555-56 (7th Cir. 1993), § 210.4 Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs ., 26 F.3d 1027, 1029 (10th Cir. 1994), §§ 202.4, 202.9, 205.7, 205.8 Castile v. Astrue , 617 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. Aug. 13, 2010), 7th-10, 7th-12 Castillo v.......