Disability Law Blog

Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, No. 04-2251 (7th Cir. Sept. 23, 2005)

Another significant decision out of the Seventh Circuit involving inference of an onset date when contemporaneous medical evidence isn't available.  Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood, writing for the Court, finds that the ALJ did not properly apply SSR 83-20  when he failed to explore alternative sources of evidence to determine the onset date when the medical evidence itself was not conclusive.  Quoting from SSR 83-20, the Court wrote:

Where no reasonable inference is possible based on the available evidence and additional medical evidence is not available, “it may be necessary to explore other sources of documentation . . . from family members, friends, and former employees to ascertain why medical evidence is not available for the pertinent period and to furnish additional evidence regarding the course of the individual’s condition.”

The case also presents an interesting procedural history. This reached the Court on the Commissioner's appeal of a District Court's decision to reverse and remand for an award of benefits. The Court held that although the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, an award of benefits was not appropriate merely because the agency displayed "obduracy" in the case. "Obduracy is not a ground on which to award benefits; the evidence properly in the record must demonstrate disability." The case was therefore remanded to allow additional lay evidence to be taken. (The Court did not mention whether the District Court abused its discretion in remanding for payment of benefits. In fact, it said nothing about the standard of review.)

The Court's decision also touches on the ALJ's duty to explain his reasons for his RFC assessment pursuant to SSR 96-8p, the duty to develop the record and the proper approach to lay witness testimony.

A meaty decision well worth an hour of your time.

An MP3 of oral argument is available here, and the briefs are here.

Ellis v. Barnhart, __ F.3d __, No. 03-3945 (8th Cir., Jan. 3, 2005)

The Eighth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision authored by Circuit Judge Steven M. Colloton, affirms a step 5 denial of SSI benefits for a man alleging chronic back pain due to multiple injuries. The Court found that the ALJ's rejection of the treating physician's opinion that Ellis could sit only four hours per day was proper, that his rejection of Ellis's testimony of incapacitating pain was proper where substantial evidence did not support that testimony, and that VE testimony was unnecessary where Ellis's pain did not diminish his ability to perform afull range of sedentary work.

In dissent, Judge Heaney concluded that the doctor's opinion was well-supported by the record and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. He recounted Ellis's extensive medical history. "To summarize, Ellis has been involved in five serious car accidents in which he sustained injuries including fractures of both femurs, a fracture of the left radius, a collapsed lung, a pelvic fracture, facial lacerations, scalp lacerations, and multiple minor injuries. In addition, he has fallen twice from roofs, injuring his right hip and tail bone." He believed the medical evidence documented that Ellis's pain was chronic and severe. And he thought that the ALJ failed to correctly apply the Polaski factors and that he did not adequately explain the alleged inconsistenices in the record that supported his finding on Ellis's crediblity. Judge Heaney would have remanded for payment of benefits.

Eichelberger v. Barnhart, No. 04-1074 (8th Cir. Dec. 8, 2004)

The Eighth Circuit, in an opinion by Circuit Judge Lavenski R. Smith, affirms a step 4 denial of disability benefits, finding that the ALJ's credibility and RFC assessments were proper and supported by substantial evidence. The claimant had a surgically-repaired rotator cuff tear which the ALJ found did not prevent her return to work as a bench assembler. The Court said that the ALJ "only need acknowledge and consider" the Polaski factors before discounting a claimant's subjective complaints:

In this case, the ALJ found that Eichelberger had objectively determinable impairments, but also noted that her incentive to work might be inhibited by her longterm disability check of $1,700 per month. Gaddis v. Chater, 76 F.3d 893, 896 (8th Cir. 1996) (allowing an ALJ to judge credibility based on a strong element of secondary gain). In addition, the ALJ discounted Eichelberger's complaints noting that she ceased employment at the same time she became the primary care giver to her grandchild. Furthermore, the ALJ considered that Eichelberger watched television, read, drove, and attended church.

The ALJ paid particular attention to the fact that Eichelberger cancelled several physical therapy appointments and that no physician had imposed any work-related restrictions on her. Brown v. Chater, 87 F.3d 963, 965 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding that a claimant's failure to comply with prescribed medical treatment and a lack of significant medical restrictions is inconsistent with complaints of a disabling pain).

The claimant bore the burden of proving she could not perform past relevant work, and the Court agrees with the ALJ that she failed to carry her burden.

Brown v. Barnhart, No. 04-1518 (8th Cir. Dec. 2, 2004)

The Eighth Circuit, in a decision by Circuit Judge C. Arlen Beam, affirms a step 4 denial of disability benefits. The Court found that the ALJ properly discounted the treating physician's opinion that Brown was disabled by uncontrolled hypertension because she was noncompliant with recommended treatment. The Court also found that the ALJ properly discounted Brown's testimony regarding her pain using the Polaski factors:

The ALJ considered testimony by Brown that seemed inconsistent with limitations caused by the kind of pain Brown said she had, including that despite purported limitations on standing, lifting, and walking, she was still able to cook, do laundry, sweep and mop, attend church, and tend to her personal needs. She also testified that she acted as the primary caregiver of her daughter with cerebral palsy, helping her bathe and tending to her needs whenever the part-time assistant was not present. There was also evidence in the record that Brown performed yard work. In addition to the evidence of Brown's daily activities, the record shows the ALJ inquired during the hearing into evidence related to the other Polaski factors.

Skarbek v. Barnhart, No. 03-3745 (7th Cir. Dec. 2, 2004)

The Seventh Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, affirms a step 5 denial of disability benefits. The ALJ determined that Skarbek's arthritic knees did not prevent him from performing a limited range of medium work. The Court found that the ALJ did not err in failing to give controlling weight to the treating physician's opinion since it was inconsistent with the medical evidence. The ALJ's failure to discuss Skarbek's obesity did not warrant remand since obesity was "factored indirectly into the ALJ's decision as part of the doctor's opinions." Finally, the ALJ's credibility determinations were not "patently wrong" and were sufficiently supported by the evidence.

(Note:   This opinion was originally issued June 23, 2004 as an unpublished decision. The Court granted the defendant's request to publish on December 2, 2004.)