Excellent discussion regarding the ALJ’s duty to explain his crediblity assessment, and some sensible, quotable language from the Court regarding post-hoc rationalizations. The case is Golembiewski v. Barnhart, 322 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2003). Agency argued that the body of the ALJ’s decision implicitly supplied reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony. The Court didn’t buy it:
The Commissioner’s response is problematic for two reasons. First, nothing in Social Security Ruling 96-7p suggests that the reasons for a credibility finding may be implied. Indeed, the cases make clear that the ALJ must specify the reasons for his finding so that the applicant and subsequent reviewers will have a fair sense of the weight given to the applicant’s testimony. Steele, 290 F.3d at 942; Briggs v. Massanari, 248 F.3d 1235, 1239 (10th Cir. 2001); Schaudeck, 181 F.3d at 433-34.
Second, regardless of the requirements of Social Security Ruling 96-7p, general principles of administrative law preclude the Commissioner’s lawyers from advancing grounds in support of the agency’s decision that were not given by the ALJ. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 93-95 (1943); Steele, 290 F.3d at 941; Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 847-48 (9th Cir. 2001); Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 44 n.7 (3d Cir. 2001). So the Commissioner’s effort to pinpoint parts of the ALJ’s decision that support the credibility finding is unhelpful.
