Opinion ID: 715825
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony Offered by Smolen's Family Members

Text: 72 Disregard of the testimony of friends and family members violates 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(e)(2)(1991). Sprague, 812 F.2d at 1232; Dodrill, 12 F.3d at 918. According to that regulation, the Commissioner will consider observations by nonmedical sources about how impairments affect a claimant's ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(e)(2). More specifically, the Commissioner's Rulings require the ALJ to consider lay witness testimony in certain types of cases. SSR 88-13 states that where a claimant alleges pain or other symptoms that are not supported by medical evidence in the file, the adjudicator shall obtain detailed descriptions of daily activities by directing specific inquiries about the pain and its effects to ... third parties who would be likely to have such knowledge. SSR 88-13 (emphasis added). The ruling then requires the ALJ to give full consideration to such evidence. Id. Having been directed to consider the testimony of lay witnesses in determining a claimant's disability, the ALJ can reject the testimony of lay witnesses only if he gives reasons germane to each witness whose testimony he rejects. Dodrill, 12 F.3d at 919. 73 Here, Smolen's alleged disability is based on fatigue and pain. Her medical records are sparse and do not provide adequate documentation of those symptoms. Under SSR 88-13, the ALJ therefore had to consider the testimony of Smolen's family members, as lay witnesses, regarding her symptoms. Instead, he rejected that testimony. 74 The first reason the ALJ gave for doing so was that the testimony was from family witnesses who were therefore understandably advocates, and biased. This amounted to a wholesale dismissal of the testimony of all the witnesses as a group and therefore does not qualify as a reason germane to each individual who testified. Moreover, the same could be said of any family member who testified in any case. The fact that a lay witness is a family member cannot be a ground for rejecting his or her testimony. To the contrary, testimony from lay witnesses who see the claimant every day is of particular value, see Dodrill, 12 F.3d at 919 ([a]n eyewitness can often tell whether someone is suffering or merely malingering ... this is particularly true of witnesses who view the claimant on a daily basis ...); such lay witnesses will often be family members. 75 The second reason for rejecting the testimony of Smolen's family members was that medical records, including chart notes made at the time, are far more reliable and entitled to more weight than recent recollections made by family members and others, made with a view toward helping their sibling in pending litigation. Contrary to the testimony of Smolen's family members, the ALJ concluded that, because Smolen's medical records through 1987 did not reflect symptoms of fatigue and severe back pain, it was simply beyond belief that Smolen suffered such fatigue ... back pain and dysfunction during her 14-year gap between her two severe bouts of cancers.... The rejection of the testimony of Smolen's family members because Smolen's medical records did not corroborate her fatigue and pain violates SSR 88-13, which directs the ALJ to consider the testimony of lay witnesses where the claimant's alleged symptoms are unsupported by her medical records. See SSR 88-13 (where allegation [of subjective symptom] is not supported by objective medical evidence in the file, the adjudicator shall obtain detailed descriptions of daily activities by directing specific inquiries about the [symptom] and its effects to ... third parties who would be likely to have such knowledge.). 76 Thus, the ALJ erred in rejecting the testimony of Smolen's family members. 77