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.

Branum v. Barnhart, No. 03-7105, __ F.3d __ (10th Cir. Aug. 5, 2004)

The Tenth Circuit, in an opinion by Senior Circuit Judge John C. Porfilio, affirmed a denial of SSI benefits. The Court found that the ALJ properly developed the medical record, properly analyzed the claimant's alleged mental impairment in determining that it was non-severe, properly assessed the claimant's credibility where the claimant only took ibuprofen for back pain, and properly discounted the treating physcian's opinion where the treating relationship was limited to two visits and the doctor was not an orthopedic specialist.

Note:  This case was originally decided on August 5, 2004 and issued as an unpublished opinion. On September 27, 2004, the Court granted the Commissioner's Motion to Publish.

Barnett v. Barnhart, No. 03-4076, __ F.3d __ (7th Cir. Aug. 25, 2004)

The Seventh Circuit, in an opinion by Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner, reverses the District Court's judgment affirming a denial of disability benefits and remands for further proceedings. The claimant suffered from non-convulsive epileptic seizures.

The Court found that the ALJ improperly discredited the claimant's testimony, her husband's testimony and the opinion of her treating physician. The Court criticized the ALJ's handling of listing 11.03 in that he failed to carefully consider medical records predating her alleged onset of disability. And the Court, citing SSR 96-2p and 96-5p, also determined that the ALJ should have recontacted the treating physician "to flesh out an opinion for which the medical support is not readily discernable."

A good opinion, despite some loose language about the listings establishing "presumptive disability" and a dubious suggestion that seizures occurring with less than listing frequency might nevertheless equal the listing.