light of the full medical record. While a treating physician's report is due considerable weight, as we have repeatedly stressed in the past, see e.g. Barger v. Bowen, 666 F. Supp. 77 (1987); Keck v. Bowen, 651 F. Supp. 1160 (1987); Donnelly v. Heckler, 651 F. Supp. 150 (1986); Baird v. Heckler, 647 F. Supp. 1572 (1986); Dilling v. Heckler, 645 F. Supp. 81 (1986), where the physician contradicts himself, and where other medical evidence indicates a less severe impairment, the physician's opinion may be discounted. While we believe the Secretary often improperly rejects a treating physician's opinion, on the present record the Secretary's conclusion is based on substantial evidence.
Plaintiff also complains that his depression prevents him from holding steady employment. While various doctors have noted plaintiff's depression, none have given any insight into its severity. Plaintiff was evaluated by a psychiatrist, and his report is the only psychiatric opinion available to the Secretary. The psychiatrist concluded that plaintiff's condition was mild and recommended that plaintiff avoid stressful occupations.
The Secretary concluded, based on substantial evidence of record, that plaintiff's heart disease and arthritis limited him to sedentary occupations. The Secretary's conclusion that plaintiff's mild depression prevents him from handling stressful positions, but does not significantly reduce plaintiff's capacity to perform the range of sedentary occupations, is likewise supported by substantial evidence. The decision of the Secretary will therefore be affirmed.
AND NOW in accord with the accompanying Opinion it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The decision of the Secretary is AFFIRMED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mark the matter CLOSED.
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1987.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.