District Court Defines ALJ's Role

December 18, 2011

Author: Catherine M. Callery (Kate)| Louise M. Tarantino

In remanding a claim solely for the calculation of benefits, U.S. District Judge Michael A. Telesca of the Western District of New York admonished the ALJ for taking an adversarial role in the proceedings.  McAninch v. Astrue, 2011 WL 4744411 (W.D.N.Y. October 6, 2011).  Among other things, the ALJ had justified her refusal to accord controlling weight to the opinions of the claimant’s treating psychiatrists because they had not responded to the questionnaires she had sent them. 

The questionnaires, sent to two treating psychiatrists as well as the claimant’s therapist, consisted of fifty-nine questions requiring detailed narrative answers.  The Court noted that some of the questions had been answered already by these or other sources; many were redundant, with some having as many as fifteen subparts.  Judge Telesca acknowledged that the ALJ has a duty to develop the record.  He held, however, that the questionnaires could not be justified under that duty. Rather, the questionnaires “demonstrate that the ALJ took on an extremely adversarial stance vis-à-vis Plaintiff, contrary to the letter and spirit” of the non-adversarial nature of the proceedings. Citing ALJ bias cases such Pronti v. Barnhart, 339 F.Supp.2d 480, 492 (W.D.N.Y.2004), he referenced the claimant’s right to have a fair and impartial decision-maker.  He went on to note that because the questionnaires were not even provided to the Plaintiff’s attorney, they amounted to an ex-parte cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s medical providers.  He found this to be a clear error of law.

The Court also faulted the ALJ for rejecting the opinions of the treating psychiatrists based on her own handwriting analysis.  She concluded that they had been written by the claimant’s therapist rather than the psychiatrists themselves.  First, the Court found that even if written by the therapist - a non-acceptable medical source under the treating physician regulations at 20 C.F.R. §416.927 - the ALJ could not reject them out of hand.  Second, Judge Telesca held that there is no legal requirement that a doctor must personally write a report that he or she signs in order for it to be accorded controlling weight.  He found that even if the ALJ’s dubious handwriting analysis were correct, there was no reason to assume that the reports did not accurately reflect the views of the treating psychiatrists who signed them.

Judge Telesca also found that the ALJ erred in relying on non-medical evidence of the claimant’s alleged daily activities to find him not disabled.  He criticized the ALJ for her attitude, reflected in the decision, that the claimant could not be disabled unless totally and completely incapacitated.  He noted that “the Court is unaware of any rule or regulation requiring that a claimant seeking disability on the basis of a mental impairment be precluded from having friends, a spouse, or a companion.”

As if icing on the cake, the Court went on to find that the ALJ erred in relying on opinions of non-examining review physicians to contradict the treating source opinions.  He also found that ALJ erred in relying on vocational expert testimony based on a hypothetical question that did not incorporate all the claimant’s mental limitations.

Ultimately, Judge Telesca remanded the case for payment, finding that the treating physicians’ opinions demonstrated that the plaintiff met the criteria of Listing 12.04 based on depressive syndrome. The case had already been remanded previously for consideration of the same treating source opinions back in 2006.

Dennis Clary of Lewiston, who was a DAP advocate a few years back, secured this decision, which will undoubtedly be cited in many memos in the future.  Thanks, Dennis!