Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
FEB 11 2004
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 03-7076
(D.C. No. 02-CV-473-W)
(E.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Before BRISCOE and McKAY , Circuit Judges, and
Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
conclusions. Dr. Mitchell diagnosed Billy with ADHD and treated him for
several months, prescribing medication for him to treat his symptoms. See Aplt.
App., Vol. II at 276-79. While some of the factual information he relied upon in
treating Billy may have come from Ms. Ragan, there is no indication that he
forfeited his independent medical judgment in favor of her opinions. The ALJs
conclusion that Dr. Mitchell based his opinion on Ms. Ragans opinion of Billys
condition appears to be based on speculation rather than fact. An ALJ may not
reject a treating physicians opinion based on his own speculation, credibility
judgments, or lay opinion. McGoffin v. Barnhart, 288 F.3d 1248, 1252 (10th Cir.
2002).
Second, the ALJ stated he was denying controlling weight to Dr. Mitchells
opinion because of its lack of supporting clinical findings. This is equivalent to a
finding that the opinion was not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical
and laboratory diagnostic techniques. SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *2
(quotations omitted). While lack of support is a legitimate reason to deny
controlling weight to a physicians opinion, see Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300,
the ALJs finding of lack of supporting clinical findings triggered a duty to
seek further development of the record before rejecting the opinion.
-5-
Drapeau v. Massanari , 255 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted).
-7-