Jesse Bishop v. Commissioner of Social Security, 583 F. App'x 65

Plaintiff Jesse Arthur Bishop appealed the district court’s adoption of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, which granted summary judgment to the Commissioner denying Social Security disability benefits.
The ALJ gave no weight to Bishop’s treating physician’s opinion, finding it mirrored Bishop’s subjective complaints and conflicted with diagnostic findings, conservative treatment, and generally normal physical exams.
Bishop challenged the ALJ’s rejection of the treating physician’s opinion, arguing the ALJ failed to apply the Johnson factors and should have given the opinion some weight.
Bishop also challenged the ALJ’s credibility determination regarding his subjective complaints, citing Bjornson as an example of improper boilerplate credibility analysis.
The Commissioner defended the ALJ’s assessment as supported by the record’s objective evidence and permissible under precedent allowing rejection of treating opinions contradicted by persuasive evidence.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, adopting the magistrate judge’s reasoning, rejecting Bishop’s arguments on the treating source opinion and credibility, and finding unpreserved issues waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly rejected treating physician's opinion	ALJ erred by failing to apply Johnson factors and should have given the opinion some weight	ALJ permissibly discounted the opinion because it was unsupported by tests, inconsistent with record, and mirrored subjective complaints	Affirmed — ALJ may reject treating opinion when not supported or inconsistent with record
Whether reviewing court may rely on evidence not cited by ALJ (Chenery problem)	Magistrate/appeals court improperly relied on evidence the ALJ did not cite; Chenery prohibits affirming on new grounds	Even if Chenery applies, any omission was harmless because record overwhelmingly supports decision	Affirmed — no reversible Chenery error; harmless if ALJ’s conclusion supported by record
Whether ALJ improperly assessed Bishop’s credibility	ALJ used boilerplate language and prematurely assessed RFC per Bjornson	ALJ cited specific contradictory evidence and reviewed whole record; credibility finding supported by substantial evidence	Affirmed — credibility determination supported by substantial evidence
Whether unraised arguments on objection were preserved for appeal	Bishop raised additional claims on appeal not objected to below	Failure to timely object waives appellate review under Wright and Thomas	Affirmed — those claims waived

Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (4th Cir. 2005) (factors for evaluating medical opinions)
Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31 (4th Cir. 1992) (ALJ may give less weight to treating physician when persuasive contrary evidence exists)
Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (upholding rejection of treating opinion when based on claimant’s subjective symptoms and contradicted by clinical findings)
Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001) (treating physician’s opinion may be rejected based on relevant factors)
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (reviewing court generally may not affirm agency on grounds the agency did not invoke)
Spiva v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2010) (harmless-error principle can excuse agency’s failure to marshal support when record overwhelmingly supports decision)
Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (criticizing boilerplate credibility findings and ordering clear linkage between evidence and credibility/RFC)
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985) (failure to timely object to magistrate’s recommendation waives appellate review)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (same waiver principle)
Edelco, Inc. v. NLRB, 132 F.3d 1007 (4th Cir. 1997) (discussing exceptional circumstances for reviewing agency action)