News & Information

CCH® UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE — 7/25/14

Court finds treating physicians’ opinions not automatically controlling in PTSD case

Generally, treating physicians’ opinions are given special consideration; however, they are not automatically controlling and the ALJ must evaluate the record as a whole. Here, the claimant suffered from PTSD, as well as other conditions, after his deployment in Iraq. He received treatment for his conditions through the Veteran’s Administration (VA). Some of the treating physicians at the VA determined that the claimant was not able to do any type of work due to his conditions. However, consulting physicians concluded that the claimant could perform some jobs in the national economy. The ALJ found that, although some of the claimant’s impairments were severe, including PTSD, he did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled a listed impairment. Further, the ALJ found that despite not being able to perform his past relevant work as a truck driver, the claimant was able to do other work and was not disabled. The ALJ gave significant weight to the opinions of the consulting physicians and less weight to the opinions of the treating physicians. Further, the ALJ determined that the claimant’s statements regarding his symptoms were not credible to the extent that they were inconsistent with his residual functional capacity to perform some work. On appeal, the claimant argued that the ALJ erred by giving less weight to the opinions of the treating physicians and presented an improper hypothetical to the vocational expert. The court, however, disagreed. The ALJ properly gave limited weight to the treating physicians’ opinions as substantial evidence conflicted with their findings. In addition, the ALJ’s finding regarding the claimant’s own statements was based on numerous factors. The claimant’s reported daily activities and the fact that he collected unemployment insurance benefits after his alleged disability onset date both weighed against his credibility. Finally, the court found that the ALJ properly phrased the hypothetical to the vocational expert. The denial of benefits was affirmed (Gregory Smith v. Commr., CA-8, No. 13-2984, June 25, 2014).