Treating Physician's Opinion is Given Controlling Weight in Disability Claim Only When It Is Well Supported and Consistent With Substantial Evidence in the Record
KETELBOETER v. ASTRUE (December 15, 2008)
Brian Ketelboeter was a truck driver. He claims that he was injured in 1995, although he continued working until 2003. During those eight years, he complained of several additional injuries and increasing pain. Many physicians examined Ketelboeter over those years. Most tests showed no physical problems, at least none consistent with the degree of pain Ketelboeter claimed to experience. Dr. Dickson began treating Ketelboeter in 2002. Dickson treated his pain with muscle relaxants and therapy. Dickson reported that Ketelboeter’s pain was not consistent with the objective physical findings. Ketelboeter stopped working in June of 2003 and applied for disability in September. A hearing was held in April of 2005. The record contained the medical conclusions of Dickson and a state medical expert who reviewed Ketelboeter’s records. A vocational expert opined that, although Ketelboeter could no longer perform his truck driving job, he could perform other jobs. The vocational expert relied on the testimony of the medical expert in reaching his conclusion. He admitted that Dickson’s testimony would support an opinion that Ketelboeter would not be able to perform any job. The ALJ denied Ketelboeter’s claim. The ALJ granted Ketelboeter a second hearing based on additional testimony from Dickson. Again, a state-agency expert testified. He testified that there was little objective evidence of Ketelboeter’s pain. The vocational expert identified several additional jobs that Ketelboeter could perform. Again, the ALJ denied Ketelboeter’s claim. The ALJ placed more weight on the testimony of non-treating experts than Ketelboeter’s treating physician. He did so because of the lack of objective evidence of pain and Dickson’s own conclusions that Ketelboeter’s reports of pain were not supported by physical findings. Ketelboeter appeals.
In their opinion, Judges Coffey, Ripple and Manion affirmed. The Court noted that a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight when it is well-supported by clinical and diagnostic techniques and consistent with substantial evidence in the record. The Court found substantial evidence in support of the district court’s decision to give greater weight to the state expert. There was very little objective evidence in the record supporting Ketelboeter’s claimed severity of pain and injury. Dickson’s conclusions were supported almost exclusively by Ketelboeter’s own statements. Even Dickson testified that Ketelboeter’s pain was out of proportion to any physical evidence. The district court did not err in accepting the consulting physician’s opinion over that of the treating physician.
