News & Information

 

Visit us at the new www.wklawbusiness.com for all legal, business and health care products and services from Wolters Kluwer Law & Business

CCH® UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE — 6/30/15

Credibility of subjective complaints of pain improperly discounted, says Circuit Court

The claimant suffered from diabetes and its numerous symptoms, most significantly diabetic neuropathy which caused pain and burning sensations in his feet. For a period of three years, the claimant’s treating physician noted the difficulties due to the neuropathy and provided various courses of treatment for the condition. Because the claimant could no longer handle the rigors of his former occupation as a dairy farmer, he applied for benefits. A state-agency physician generally agreed with the treating physician’s assessment of the claimant’s condition. However, a second state-agency physician disagreed with the other doctors and stated that the claimant could perform medium work with certain limitations. At the hearing, the claimant testified that in order to manage his pain he lies down for about two hours every afternoon to rub his legs. Despite this record, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform medium work and was not disabled. The ALJ disbelieved the claimant’s statements regarding his limitations and found his testimony to be inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. On appeal, the claimant argued that the ALJ improperly discredited his testimony. Moreover, the claimant asserted that if his credibility was properly assessed it would mean he was disabled. Although a court will defer to an ALJ’s credibility finding, it still must be supported by the record. Here, the court determined the ALJ’s credibility finding was improper. The claimant’s complaints of severe pain due to the neuropathy did not need to be confirmed by diagnostic tests. There was no evidence that a doctor ever recommended such a study that the ALJ thought would be appropriate. In addition, the complaints of pain and nerve function were not considered inconsistent by the treating physician and the ALJ’s assumption of a connection between the two was inappropriate. An ALJ cannot determine the significance of particular medical findings. In addition, the ALJ improperly relied on the claimant’s sporadic use of medications to assess his credibility. No inquiry was made as to why the claimant was less than fully compliant with the prescribed treatment. Lastly, the claimant’s daily activities were consistent with his testimony. Thus, the ALJ’s credibility finding was flawed, the decision upholding the denial of benefits was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings (Ronald M. Engstrand v. Colvin, CA-7, No. 14-2702, June 4, 2015).