PITTSBURGH – A federal judge found in 2008 that a medical opinion of a Pennsylvania doctor who says U.S. Senate hopeful John Fetterman is able to work despite a recent stroke was unreliable in an applicant’s appeal case over Social Security benefits.
In Crouch v. Astrue, argued in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania before Judge Donetta W. Ambrose, an opinion provided by Dr. Clifford Chen was scrutinized in a case where an applicant for Social Security disability benefits, Betsy Crouch, was denied those benefits, and then appealed to the Commonwealth’s then-Commissioner of Social Security, Michael J. Astrue.
Crouch sought benefits for spinal disorder and depression and hoped the opinion of Chen would help her case, but his findings were rejected in administrative proceedings. A judge had ruled Chen's opinion that she receive benefits was inconsistent with his own notes.
Chen recently cleared Fetterman, a Democrat, for public office ahead of a debate with Dr. Mehmet Oz, as the two are in a hotly contested race for U.S. Senate.
Fetterman's performance in a recent debate with Oz has sparked media coverage, including Politico reporting Fetterman was "struggling at times to effectively communicate — missing words, pausing awkwardly and speaking haltingly." The New York Times said Fetterman was "showing stroke effects."
Campaign finance records provided by the Federal Election Commission show that Chen donated $1,330 to Fetterman’s campaign in the past 17 months.
In Crouch's case, she felt the Administrative Law Judge improperly rejected the medical opinion of Chen and said that his opinion “should have been given controlling weight.”
“The ALJ made the following findings in support of the decision to deny plaintiff’s claim: (1) The plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful employment since June 1, 2004; (2) The plaintiff had lumbar degenerative disc disease and adjustment disorder with depressed mood which qualify as severe impairments; (3) The plaintiff does not have an impairment that meets one the of the listed impairments; (4) The plaintiff is unable to perform any past relevant work; and (5) in considering the plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform,” Ambrose stated.
The veracity of Chen’s opinion, was, in Ambrose’s words, “the central dispute in the appeal.”
“Dr. Chen was the plaintiff’s primary care physician and he saw the plaintiff every six to eight weeks since 2002. In the interrogatory, Dr. Chen opined that the plaintiff would be unable to work five days a week, or eight hours a day without breaks and that she must lay down periodically throughout the day. Dr. Chen claimed that his opinion was based upon the plaintiff’s record, consultations and her MRI reports,” Ambrose said.
“The ALJ’s ultimate conclusion as to Dr. Chen’s opinion was that it was merely a conclusory functional assessment that was not supported by objective functional limitations noted in the record. Plaintiff challenged this finding by stating that Dr. Chen’s opinion is uncontradicted and that Dr. Chen was in the best possible position to assess plaintiff’s functional capacity. The Government, however, reiterates the ALJ’s point that Dr. Chen’s opinion is unsupported by the record, including his own notes. The Government points to Dr. Chen’s examinations in June and July of 2004 as examples of Dr. Chen’s records contradicting his opinion.”
In those examinations, Chen made the objective observation that the plaintiff had normal heel and toe walking as well as a negative straight leg-raising test. However, Ambrose concluded that “nowhere in his treatment notes are there objective observations of limited functional capacity that can lend support to Dr. Chen’s opinion finding that the plaintiff is unable to work.”
“In looking at the record as a whole, the ALJ’s decision to give Dr. Chen’s opinion only ‘little weight’ was supported by substantial evidence, [such as] the lack of objective observations of functional limitations in Dr. Chen’s records, [which led] the ALJ to reasonably conclude that Dr. Chen’s opinion was not well-supported and therefore, the evidence presented did not require the ALJ to give Dr. Chen’s opinion controlling weight,” Ambrose found.
“Plaintiff’s second challenge to the ALJ’s decision hinges on the first. The plaintiff argues that the hypothetical question posed by the ALJ to the vocational expert was erroneous in that it was based on the finding that the plaintiff could perform at least sedentary work. The ALJ’s finding that plaintiff could perform sedentary work was determined without giving controlling weight to Dr. Chen’s opinion. As stated above, the ALJ could reject Dr. Chen’s opinion as being not well-supported. In viewing the record as a whole, the ALJ’s hypothetical question based in part on the finding that plaintiff could perform sedentary work, is supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the vocational expert was not erroneous. As a result, since substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff could perform sedentary work, the plaintiff’s motion must be denied and the defendant’s granted.”
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:07-cv-01748
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com