The opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-2355
KEVIN C. BROWN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Kelly McKenna Cournoyer and Green and Greenberg on brief for
appellant.
Margaret E. Curran, United States Attorney, and Robert M.
Peckrill, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security
Administration, on brief for appellee.
September 28, 2000
Per Curiam. Kevin C. Brown appeals from a district court
opinion upholding the Commissioner's denial of social security
disability insurance benefits. Upon careful review of the
briefs and record, we affirm essentially for the reasons stated
in the district court's opinion. We add only the following
comments to address claimant's contention that the
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") violated the regulations
regarding the weighting of evidence.
As an initial matter, claimant's suggestion that the
opinions of Dr. Earley, Dr. Ruggiano, and Dr. Stern are entitled
to controlling weight is frivolous. Of these three sources,
only Dr. Earley (claimant's primary care physician) is a
treating source.1 Dr. Earley's statement that claimant is
"psychologically incapacitated for work" is conclusory and
conflicts with other evidence in the record. More importantly,
the statement is an opinion on an issue reserved for the
Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). Under the
circumstances, the ALJ was entitled to reject it.
1
The ALJ found that claimant never actually engaged in
treatment with Dr. Ruggiano, and this finding is supported by
the record. Dr. Stern was clearly just an examining source.
2
Moreover, the ALJ accepted the opinion of claimant's
examining sources that he has a severe personality disorder
separate and apart from his alcoholism. The question as to
whether this disorder meets or equals any Listing is an issue
reserved to the Commissioner.2 Id. Similarly, claimant's mental
residual functional capacity is an issue reserved to the
Commissioner. Id. On these latter issues, the regulations
specifically provide that the Commissioner will not give any
special significance to the source of the opinion. Id. Thus,
in reaching his conclusion as to claimant's residual limitations
stemming from his personality disorder, the ALJ was not required
to give any special weight to the examining sources' opinions.
Affirmed.
2
And, in any event, Dr. Ruggiano's testimony (in which he
orally completed a Psychiatric Review Technique Form) is fully
consistent with the ALJ's implicit finding that claimant's
personality disorder is not of Listing severity. Specifically,
the functional limitations stated by Dr. Ruggiano--slight
restriction of activities of daily living; moderate difficulties
in maintaining social functioning; often suffering from
deficiencies of concentration, persistence or pace; and repeated
episodes of deterioration or decompensation in work or work-like
settings--satisfy only one out of the four Paragraph B criteria.
See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subp't P, App. 1, § 12.08(B)(1)-(4). To
satisfy the Listing for 12.08, at least three of the Paragraph
B criteria must be met. Id.
3