Opinion ID: 512019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Somatoform Disorder

Text: 5 In considering the extent of Hall's nonexertional impairment, the ALJ erroneously determined that he was ineligible for disability classification under somatoform disorders. 2 The ALJ did, however, consider whether Hall was disabled as a result of an affective disorder. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, Sec. 12.04 (1987). This is significant because in order to find disability because of an affective disorder, claimant must demonstrate a causal connection between the disorder and at least two of the four following conditions: 6
7
8 3. Deficiencies of concentration, persistence or pace resulting in frequent failure to complete tasks in a timely manner (in work settings or elsewhere); or 9 4. Repeated episodes of deterioration or decompensation in work or work-like settings which cause the individual to withdraw from that situation or to experience exacerbation of signs and symptoms (which may include deterioration of adaptive behaviors). 10 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, Sec. 12.04(B)(1)-(4). To find disability due to a somatoform disorder, the claimant must demonstrate a causal connection with three of these four conditions. Id. at Sec. 12.07(B)(1)-(4). The ALJ concluded that while Hall might have difficulties in maintaining social functioning he was able to perform activities of daily living, concentrate sufficiently to complete tasks in a timely manner, and had not experienced any episodes of deterioration or decompensation in work-like settings. By virtue of these findings, the ALJ could not have found Hall disabled by a somatoform disorder even if he had properly interpreted Sec. 12.07(A). 11 The Appeals Council acknowledged that the ALJ had incorrectly interpreted Sec. 12.07(A). It nonetheless affirmed the ALJ's decision. Its decision was based, in part, on the ALJ's analysis of Hall's capabilities under Sec. 12.04(B)(1)-(4). The decision was also based on a review of the reports generated by Drs. Alford Karayusuf, Anthony Tabor, and Charles Chmielewski. The Appeals Council observed that these experts had diagnosed Hall's condition as stemming from a dysthymic disorder and depression rather than from a somatoform disorder. 3 The Appeals Council determined that the psychological and psychiatric reports, coupled with the ALJ's findings on Hall's capabilities under the Secs. 12.04(B) & 12.07(B) criteria, held greater credibility than Hall's complaints of disabling pain. 12 We conclude that there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Secretary's finding that Hall was not disabled by virtue of a somatoform disorder.