Long-term Disability Claims

Further support for a heightened degree of scrutiny is found in Dr.
Hopkins' selective "pick and choose" approach in reviewing the medical
records in the case. Dr. Hopkins completely mischaracterizes Dr. Babins'
opinion as to the Plaintiff's ability to return to work. She states in
her correspondence of February 9, 2001: "[Dr. Babins] wrote an APS
10/23/00 which stated that [Plaintiff] was to remain OOW through
1/10/01." Def. Ex. 17. A fair reading of the Attending Physician
Statement suggests that Dr. Babins did not want the Plaintiff to return
to work between October 23, 2000 and the date of her next visit, January
10, 2001, at which time a further evaluation would be made concerning
her disability status. Def. Ex. 7. Tellingly absent from Dr. Hopkins'
report is a reference to Dr. Babins' complete office note of January 10,
2001 (the date Dr. Hopkins indicated that Dr. Babins released her to
return to work), wherein Dr. Babins unqualifiedly stated:
... She is disabled on a long-term basis and I do not see this changing
any time soon. She may at some point require an ankle fusion, although
given her bad knee[,] this certainly will be difficult overall.
Def. Ex. 16, p. A 168 (emphasis added). Dr. Hopkins also found that it
was "not clear why she ... us[ed] a cane to ambulate." Def. Ex. 17. Once
again, the medical records provide the answer. Dr. Euliano's office
notes reflected that she used a cane due to continuing difficulties with
her knees, Def. Ex. 16, p. A 168, and Dr. Johnson stated that the
Plaintiff was unable to walk without a cane due to severe pain in her
back and extremities. Def. Ex. B, p. A 174.
Finally, there is no explanation contained in the CRC's decision as to
why it rejected the Plaintiff's treating physicians' opinions that she
was disabled. Dr. Tursi opined that the Plaintiff could only
intermittently sit, stand and/or walk, was unable to perform her job
duties due to recurrent, severe pain, and could only work for a total of
2 hours per day. Dr. Johnson, the only independent physician who
physically examined the Plaintiff, opined that she was totally disabled.
[FN2] Dr. Hopkins' opinions, of course, were based on a paper review of
the Plaintiff's medical records, while the treating physicians' and Dr.
Johnson's opinions were based upon their examination of the Plaintiff
and forming professional opinions about what they observed. Cohen v.
Standard Ins. Co., 155 F.Supp.2d 346, 352 (E.D.Pa.2001) (noting that
defendant's physician reviewed "cold test results" of plaintiff's
medical file while the plaintiff's treating physicians "form[ed]
professional opinions based upon what they personally observed.").

Petroff v. Verizon North, Inc. 2004 WL 1047896, *13 (W.D.Pa.)
(W.D.Pa.,2004)