New York Social Security Disability Lawyer Blog

In a perfect world, a person seeking Social Security Disability benefits will support his or her claim with a detailed record of regular medical treatment, explaining the claimant's impairments and how they affect his or her functioning. For a number of reasons, however, this is not always possible. In Torres v. Astrue, the District Court for the District of South Carolina concluded that a person's inability to get appropriate medical treatment is not, in itself, sufficient basis to find the person ineligible for disability benefits.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied Plaintiff Carlos Torres' disability benefits claim, in which he asserted that he remained unable to work due to a variety of impairments, including a spine injury. Following an administrative hearing before an SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Judge found that Plaintiff was disabled from July 15,2005 through July 23,2007. The ALJ further determined that Plaintiff experienced medical improvement and was no longer disabled as of July 23, 2007.

The ALJ's decision was based largely on the opinion of Dr. Charles Thomas, who examined Plaintiff on July 23, 2007, the last day in which the ALJ found Plaintiff was disabled, and found "a reduced range of motion in the cervical spine."

The record revealed that the ALJ found that Plaintiff experienced an improvement in his condition beginning the very day after the examination by Dr. Thomas. The judge supported his conclusion by finding that there was "little evidence" that Plaintiff received treatment for his injury following the examination. Based on this lack of treatment, the ALJ further found that Plaintiff's testimony regarding the nature and extent of his impairment was "less than credible."

On appeal, the District Court ruled that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. "It is notable that Dr. Thomas never again examined Plaintiff, and the record is wholly absent of evidence of any substantial medical change in condition that occurred on July 24, 2007 that would support such a dramatic alteration in the Plaintiff's disability status."

Continue reading "Court: Spotty Medical Treatment Does Not Bar Disability Benefits Award - Torres v. Astrue" »

The central question in a Social Security Disability case is whether the person seeking benefits can still work, despite any physical or mental impairments. That includes both a consideration of any limits on the claimant's ability to work imposed by the impairments, and the types of jobs the claimant can perform, given those limits and his or her education, background and experience. This decision often involves input from a vocational expert (VE), a vocational professional engaged by the SSA to provide an opinion as to whether a person with the same background and impairments as the claimant's can still work.

In Quiros v. Astrue, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida explains that in certain circumstances, it's not just a good idea for the Social Security Administration (SSA) and its judges to consult a VE, it's a requirement.

The SSA denied Plaintiff Odemaris Quiros' disability benefits claim, in which Quiros claimed she was unable to work due to anxiety and panic attacks, osteoarthritis and hypertension. Plaintiff then appeared before an SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at an administrative hearing. The ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled for benefits purposes because she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to do medium work in a supervised, low stress environment and with certain physical limitations, including a number of jobs available in the national economy.

On appeal, the Court found that the ALJ should have consulted a vocational expert in reaching the decision on Plaintiff's ability to work.

"There are two avenues by which the ALJ may determine whether the Plaintiff has the ability to adjust to work in the national economy: either by using the Medical Vocational Guidelines ("grids") or by testimony from a vocational expert," the Court explained. The grids draw on a claimant's physical limitations, age, education and experience to determine the types of jobs the person can perform. The ALJ may not rely solely on the grids, however, where the claimant is either not able to perform a full range of work at a certain level or where the person is affected by "non-exertional" impairments that significantly limit his or her work skills, such as a mental impairment. Under such circumstances, the judge may consult the grids, but must also consider independent evidence, such as VE testimony.

Continue reading "Court Requires Social Security Judge to Consult Vocational Expert in Disability Benefits Case - Quiros v. Astrue" »

While medical evidence is often hard to obtain from doctors and hospitals, the sooner it is submitted in a Social Security Disability case, the better. In Brewes v. Commissioner of Social Security, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether evidence submitted late in the claim process should be included in the record on an appeal.

Plaintiff Mindy Brewes filed a Social Security Disability Insurance benefits claim, maintaining that she was unable to work due to depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety and agoraphobia. After the Social Security Administration (SSA) initially denied the claim, Plaintiff appeared at an administrative hearing before an SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in February 2007. The evidentiary record before the judge at the time of the hearing covered Plaintiff's medical history from 2002 to 2007. Although the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from a number of severe mental impairments, he nevertheless concluded that she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform "simple one-, two-, three-step work with limited interaction with co-workers and no public interaction." As a result, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled for benefits purposes.

Plaintiff then requested the SSA's Appeals Council to review the ALJ's decision and provided additional medical evidence to the Council which was not before the ALJ. The Council denied the request for review, finding that the additional evidence did not provide a basis for further review.

On appeal, a federal district court refused to consider the additional evidence because it was not before the ALJ when he rendered the decision. On further appeal, the Ninth Circuit ruled that not only was the district court's ruling erroneous, but all of the evidence combined to show that Plaintiff was disabled and entitled to benefits.

"[W]hen the Appeals Council considers new evidence in deciding whether to review a decision of the ALJ, that evidence becomes part of the administrative record, which the district court must consider when reviewing the Commissioner's final decision for substantial evidence" the Court ruled.

Continue reading "Late Evidence in Social Security Disability Cases - Brewes v. Commissioner of Social Security" »