context: The ALJ simply cannot do this. Having rejected the available medical record upon which to base an RFC assessment, the ALJ was then required to call a medical advisor and/or obtain clarification of the record to flesh out what she needed to support her decision.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 867 F.2d 1040, 1043
citation_a.parenthetical: "[t]he administrative law judge is entitled to give substantial weight to the testimony of a medical advisor even though the advisor has not examined the claimant personally"
citation_a.sentence: See DeFrancesco v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1040, 1043 (7th Cir. 1989)(“[t]he administrative law judge is entitled to give substantial weight to the testimony of a medical advisor even though the advisor has not examined the claimant personally”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 381 F.3d 664, 669
citation_b.parenthetical: sometimes additional development may provide support for treating source's medical opinion that otherwise appears to be lacking
citation_b.sentence: See also Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, 669 (7th Cir.2004)(sometimes additional development may provide support for treating source’s medical opinion that otherwise appears to be lacking); Wilder v. Chater, 64 F.3d 335, 338 (7th Cir.1995) (ALJ may not rely on a hunch). By failing to do this and relying instead on her own opinion, she impermissibly “played doctor” — something expressly prohibited by the controlling case law.