New York Social Security Disability Lawyer Blog

In a recent post, we explained a Social Security case in New York City in which the reviewing court looked at a disability claimant's Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score in part to determine the severity of the claimant's mental impairment. It's easy to lose sight of this tool in a shed full of strange sounding Social Security acronyms - ALJ, VE, RFC, etc. - but, for claimants seeking to prove they are eligible for disability benefits due to a mental impairment, the GAF score can make or break a claim. So, what exactly is GAF and what's all the hubbub about? The District Court for the Northern District of Iowa explains in Dawdy v. Astrue.

Plaintiff Robert Dawdy filed a claim for Social Security disability benefits, asserting that he's unable to work due to seizures and an unidentified mental impairment. Plaintiff, who holds a general equivalency diploma (GED) and previously worked as a restaurant cook and telephone solicitor, appeared at an administrative hearing before an SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) after the SSA initially denied his claim. The ALJ found that Plaintiff is not disabled for benefits purposes because he can still perform certain jobs available in the national economy. The SSA's Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request that it review the ALJ's decision.

On appeal, however, a District Court magistrate recommended that the court reverse the ALJ's decision and remand the case for further proceedings. Specifically, the magistrate found that the ALJ neglected to take Plaintiff's GAF score into account in considering his claim and that this error alone was sufficient to justify reversal.

In adopting the magistrate's recommendation, the court explained that a GAF score rates a person's psychological, social and occupational functioning based on a scale divided into ten ranges of functioning. The psychologist scored Plaintiff's GAF at 45, a rating that indicates "serious symptoms or any serious impairment in social, occupational or school functioning." Furthermore, a vocational expert (VE), a vocation rehabilitation professional that provides advice to an ALJ regarding a claimant's ability to perform any type of work activity, testified at the hearing that a person with a GAF score of 45 would not be able to sustain employment.

Nevertheless, according to the court, the ALJ failed to address this evidence in rendering her decision. "The ALJ is not free to ignore medical evidence but rather must consider the whole record," the court noted. As a result, it reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Continue reading "The Role of the Global Assessment of Functioning Score in Social Security Disability Cases - Dawdy v. Astrue" »

The Social Security Administration recently announced that they will no longer inform disability claimants which judge they will be assigned to for a hearing. I believe that this policy, instituted in response to "judge shopping" by some of the large national disability advocates, will have negative ramifications for disability claimants.

You can read more about this important new ruling by Social Security and my thoughts on how it will affect disability claimants in the article I wrote by clicking here.

Lew Insler

In the most recent newsletter, Lew Insler discusses the negative ramifications of a recent Social Security ruling. To visit our newsletter online, click here.

One of a handful of factors that the SSA and reviewing judges consider in determining whether a claimant is eligible for Social Security disability benefits is whether the claimant's impairment(s) is sufficiently severe. In Parker-Grose v. Astrue, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals explains some of the evidence that can be used to meet this requirement.

Plaintiff Mary Jane Parker-Grose filed a claim for Social Security disability benefits, asserting that she's unable to work due to depression. The Social Security Administration (SSA) initially denied the claim and, following an administrative hearing, an SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Plaintiff was not disabled for purposes of obtaining disability benefits. Specifically, the judge determined that Plaintiff's depression is not sufficiently severe.

In order to find a claimant eligible for Social Security benefits, the SSA or a reviewing judge must find that the claimant suffers from one or more severe impairments. An impairment is severe if it "significantly limits the claimant's ability to do basic work activities." The SSA advises claimants "[i]f you do not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled." An ALJ considering the severity of a claimant's impairment must make this decision based on substantial evidence.

In this case, the Second Circuit - which sits in New York City and whose jurisdiction covers New York state, Connecticut and Vermont - reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, ruling that the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff's depression is "nonsevere" was not supported by substantial evidence. In so doing, the court noted that the severity requirement is a "de minimis" one aimed at weeding out claims in which a claimant suffers from only minimal impairment.

According to the court, two treating psychologists - Dr. Joseph M. Patalano and Dr. Richard Root II - examined Plaintiff and determined that she suffers from depression. Furthermore, Dr. Root estimated Plaintiff's "Global Assessment of Functioning" (GAF) score - an assessment of a patient's overall level of functioning - to be in the range of persons experiencing "moderate symptoms" including "moderate difficulty in school, work, [and] social functioning." These opinions, the court ruled, proved that Plaintiff's depression was sufficiently severe.

Continue reading "Severe Impairment in Social Security Disability Cases - Parker-Grose v. Astrue" »

Thanks to everyone who participated in our drive to raise money for area food pantries! Over the holiday season, we offered to donate $10 for every new "Like" on our Facebook page, and we raised $520. Lew and Gabe will be rounding this up to $600, to be distributed equally between the following food banks:
• Tarrytown Community Opportunity Center Food Pantry
• Dutchess County Community Action Partnership: Beacon Food Pantry
• Center for Food Action (Hackensack)
• Daily Bread Food Pantry (Danbury)

Let's all make an ongoing effort to donate food and other necessities to a food banks serving our local communities!

As experienced Social Security disability attorneys with more than 50 years of combined experience representing clients in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, we've long known that the outcome of a particular case can depend on which Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) from the Social security Administration (SSA) is assigned to hear it. After a year in which the SSA has taken heat for judges that appear unfairly predisposed to deny claims as well as one allegedly approves claims too frequently, the Administration is taking action.

The Wall Street Journal's Damien Paletta reports that "[t]he Social Security Administration has commissioned an independent review of the federal disability system amid concerns it awards benefits to those who don't deserve them and denies benefits to those who do." The Administrative Conference of the United States, a public-private organization designed to make government more efficient, will review the work of the SSA's more than 1,500 ALJs and release recommendations for improving the claims process in 2012.

Additionally, in an effort to prevent so-called "judge shopping," Paletta reports that the SSA will discontinue its practice of notifying claimants of which ALJ has been assigned to his or her respective claim. It is assumed by SSA that if a Representative doesn't know which ALJ is assigned to the case, there will be less of an inclination to try to get the case reassigned. Although we believe that SSA's action is flawed and is penalizing both the claimant's and the scrupulous attorneys who represent their clients at the hearing regardless of who the assigned ALJ is, we know that this practice is simply a response to a larger problem: the wide disparity among SSA ALJs, whose records vary widely despite the fact that it is their job is to apply laws which are generally clear.

For example, it is well known to local practitioners that SSA's Jamaica, Queens office, has long had a reputation as being predisposed to deny the majority of Disability claims. Last year, several Social Security claimants filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that the ALJs in the Queens office are biased against applicants, with several judges who have systematically denied benefits by making legal and factual errors. Three of the Queens ALJs named in the suit rejected more than 60% of the Social Security claims they reviewed over five months in late 2010 and early 2011, while another rejected an astounding 81% of claims reviewed during the same time. In 2007, the Queens office had the fifth highest percentage nationwide of decisions sent back for rehearing upon further appeal.

On the other side of the spectrum is David B. Daugherty, an ALJ who retired over the summer amid an investigation into his record. At hearings held out of the Office of Hearings and Appeals in Huntington, W.Va., Daugherty approved benefits in 99.7% of his decisions in Fiscal Year 2010, including all 729 cases that he decided in the first six months of the year.

Continue reading "Social Security Judges to be Reviewed" »

In March v. Commissioner of Social Security, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal explains that, in determining whether a disability benefits claimant retains the ability to perform work, a judge must take into account all of the Plaintiff's physical and mental limitations.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied Plaintiff Vickie March's initial claim for Social Security disability benefits, in which March had claimed that she's unable to work due to various physical and mental impairments. March appealed the decision and, following a hearing before an SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the judge also found that she was not disabled. Specifically, the ALJ determined that March retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) - the ability to perform basic functions necessary for work related activities despite any impairments - to perform certain jobs available in the national economy.

Upon exhaustion of her administrative appeal rights, March appealed the aDministration's decision in Federal Court. At that point, Ninth Circuit found that the ALJ's RFC determination was flawed because it "did not adequately account for certain limitations." Although the ALJ found that Plaintiff's impairments caused "moderate difficulties maintaining concentration, persistence or pace and a reduced capacity to concentrate owing to pain and stress," he failed to take these limitations into account when determining Plaintiff's RFC.

Similarly, the ALJ noted that a physician's report finding that Plaintiff's physical impairments caused "restrictions on bending, twisting and repetitive upper extremity hand controls," but the ALJ did not account for these limitations in determining Plaintiff's RFC. According to the court, the ALJ was not required to discuss every piece of evidence presented in developing the record, but nevertheless was obligated to explain his rejection of significant probative evidence, such as the physician's report. As a result, the court remanded the case for further proceedings.

In reaching its decision, the court also made two important points that Social Security disability claimants should keep in mind in gathering the evidence necessary to support a claim. First, the court found that the ALJ properly discredited testimony by Plaintiff and a neighbor regarding the severity of her symptoms because this testimony conflicted with both evidence that Plaintiff provided about her daily activities and various doctors' reports. Second, the court ruled that the ALJ also properly rejected a treating physician's opinion - even though such an opinion is ordinarily entitled to great weight - because it was contained in a "conclusory check-the-box questionnaire [that] described no bases for his diagnoses..." In so doing, the court held that a physician's opinion must be supported by clinical findings in order to be sufficient to support a claim.

Continue reading "Social Security Judges Must Take All of a Claimant's Limitations into Account - March v. Commissioner of Social Security" »