Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-290-CWR-FKB
09-25-2015
MARY PURVIS, s/p/a Mary Hodge PLAINTIFF v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner, United States Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
ORDER
Before the Court is the plaintiff's objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R). Docket No. 16. The R&R recommends affirming the Commissioner's denial of Supplemental Security Income. Docket No. 15.
The Court has reviewed de novo the portions of the R&R to which the plaintiff has objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). It concludes that remand is required.
Although the ALJ's conclusion may ultimately be correct, she did not apply the Newton factors in evaluating Dr. Clark's opinion. See Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 456 (5th Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). This may have been unproblematic had there been record evidence from another treating or examining physician casting doubt on Dr. Clark's opinion. E.g., Qualls v. Astrue, 339 F. App'x 461, 466-67 (5th Cir. 2009). But there was not. And, under current law, "[a]bsent reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverting the claimant's treating specialist, an ALJ may reject the medical opinion of the treating physician only if the ALJ performs a detailed analysis of the treating physician's views under the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), . . . ." Thibodeaux v. Astrue, 324 F. App'x 440, 444 (5th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added); see Beasley v. Barnhart, 191 F. App'x 331, 336 (5th Cir. 2006) (remanding for application of Newton factors); Abadie v. Barnhart, 200 F. App'x 297, 298 (5th Cir. 2006) (same).
The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Newton factors were unnecessary because the ALJ had good cause to disregard Dr. Clark's opinion. The post-Newton cases cited above, however, as well as the plain language of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), suggest that the Newton factors are supposed to inform whether there is good cause for disregarding a treating physician's opinion. Because their application was required (again, given the lack of reliable, contrary evidence from a treating or examining physician), the case must be remanded.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Commissioner's motion to affirm is denied. A separate Final Judgment will issue this day.
SO ORDERED, this the 25th day of September, 2015.
s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE