Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

A lengthy opinion authored by Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson which focuses on the ALJ's duty to explain his reasons for his conclusions:

In sum, we cannot discern from the record the ALJ’s basis for rejecting Lightfoote’s opinions regarding these limitations nor from his mere references to the other physicians’ reports. The ALJ’s reasoning is not simply "spare"—as the district court described it—in crucial particulars it is missing. Nor did he "note[ ] the contradictory evidence in the record, which record supplie[d] the reason" for his decision. Williams v. Shalala, 997 F.2d 1494, 1499 (D.C. Cir. 1993). This simply will not do. "The judiciary can scarcely perform its assigned review function, limited though it is, without some indication not only of what evidence was credited, but also whether other evidence was rejected rather than simply ignored." Brown, 794 F.2d at 708.

P. 16

The Court also rejects post-hoc rationalizations by agency counsel:

The Commissioner contends that the ALJ must have interpreted Lightfoote’s opinion that Butler should never stoop to mean that she should stoop "very little" or "only occasionally." Appellee’s Br. at 22. While this interpretation may have some intuitive appeal, the ALJ did not articulate this view in his decision [FN. 5] and Lightfoote’s multiple opinions are not easily susceptible of such an interpretation.

Pp. 15-16.

Judge Henderson's opinion correctly focuses on the process unification rulings of 1996 to establish the standards for evaluating credibility, pain and the treating physcian's opinion evidence.

And, in the spirit of Howard Bashman, a typographical error occurs in the 6th line from the bottom of page 15: "inexplicitly" should read "inexplicably."