holding that a claimant was disabled because he could not perform sedentary work, even though he “water[ed] his landlady’s garden, occasionally visit[ed] friends and [was] able to get on and off an examination table”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a claimant was disabled because he could not perform sedentary work, even though he “water[ed] his landlady’s garden, occasionally visit[ed] friends and [was] able to get on and off an examination table”
- holding that a claimant who watered a garden, occasionally visited friends, and was able to get on and off an examination table was disabled because he could not perform sedentary work
- reversing determination of no disability and observing “that appellant receives conservative treatment, waters his landlady's garden, occasionally visits friends and is able to get on and off an examination table can scarcely be said to controvert the medical evidence”
- holding that a claimant was disabled even though he “water[ed] his landlady’s garden, occasionally visit[ed] friends and [was] able to get on and off an examination table”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MAHONEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the “treating physician” rule was not followed by the administrative law judge here. Indeed, given the tortured history of this court’s efforts to have this rule applied by administrative law judges of the Department of Health and Human Services in making disability determinations, see Hidalgo v. Bowen, 822 F.2d 294, 296-97 (2d Cir.1987), the statement by the administrative law judge here that he gave “only minimal consideration” to the assessment of the treating physician seems not merely wrong, but virtually cavalier.
I do not agree, however, that there was no substantial evidence to contradict the findings of the treating physician, which resulted from treatments which terminated more than two years before the administrative hearing under review. As summarized in Judge Nickerson’s opinion below, Mur-daugh worked- six hours a day as a receptionist and telephone answerer from March, 1984 to March, 1985 as a condition of receipt of public assistance payments, and quit that job only because more strenuous work was demanded of him. Further, Judge Nickerson correctly found that “[t]he report of Dr. Brown and the notes of Dr. Cohen lend support to the conclusion that plaintiff could undertake sedentary work,” and the majority’s summary of the findings of Doctors Brown and Cohen does not challenge the district court’s assessment. Finally, Dr. Forman’s findings that Murdaugh “could work at a desk, sitting and using his upper extremities, but the ambulation involved in getting to work would be disabling to him,” generally supports the conclusion that Murdaugh could *103 do sedentary work. The observation that he would be disabled by commuting to and from work is belied, however, by the fact that Murdaugh had commuted successfully to and from work for a full year shortly prior to his examination by Dr. Forman.
In sum, although I agree with the majority that the decision below must be reversed for failure to apply the “treating physician” rule, I disagree with its conclusion that the record “viewed as a whole does not contain substantial evidence” to contradict the treating physician’s finding that Murdaugh cannot perform the full range of sedentary work. Proper application of the “treating physician” rule could sustain findings of either disability or no disability on this record. See Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983, 986 (2d Cir.1987). I would therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings in accordance with the proper'legal standard, rather than for the calculation and award of benefits.