Opinion ID: 67177
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ALJ’s Errors in Snyder’s Case

Text: Here, the ALJ did not specify expressly the weight given to Dr. Oliverio’s opinion. The most the ALJ said is that he was giving greater weight to Dr. Bhatia’s opinion. If that implicitly meant that he gave less weight to Dr. Oliverio’s opinion, then the ALJ failed to articulate clearly the reasons for giving less weight to his opinion. This problem alone requires reversal.5 In addition, the ALJ erred in stating that Dr. Bhatia’s opinion was based on Snyder’s “history and objective findings,” while Dr. Oliverio’s opinion was “based on [Snyder’s] subjective statements.” This statement is not supported by the record. First, according to Dr. Bhatia, the only “medical/clinical finding(s)” on which he based his opinion were Snyder’s slow movements and cautious behavior 5 The ALJ also failed to state what, if any weight, he gave to the findings of Dr. Anil Ram, another of Snyder’s treating physicians. However, accepting Dr. Ram’s findings as true has no effect on the outcome of the case because Dr. Ram only identified Snyder’s condition and did not report on her symptoms or functional capacity. 9 getting on the exam table. Dr. Bhatia did not perform, or indicate that he was relying upon, any objective medical tests, such as liver function tests or other laboratory findings. Second, Dr. Oliverio indicated on his functional capacity assessment that his opinion was based on Snyder’s “clinical history,” which the record shows spanned several years of office visits and examinations. Furthermore, in his follow-up correspondence with the ALJ, Dr. Oliverio clarified that his functional capacity assessment was based on his “office notes, objective medical evidence, and Ms. Snyder’s subjective complaints.”6 Thus, Dr. Oliverio’s opinion did not rely solely on Snyder’s subjective complaints, as the ALJ stated. In summary, as to the bases for the two physicians’ opinions, it does not appear from the record that Dr. Bhatia’s opinion rests upon findings any more “objective” than those relied upon by Dr. Oliverio. Indeed, it appears both doctors relied upon their clinical observations, Snyder’s history and Snyder’s subjective reports of her symptoms. Thus, the mistake by the ALJ in this regard requires reversal. The ALJ’s ruling suffers from yet another error: The ALJ failed to give explicit and adequate reasons for discrediting Snyder’s subjective complaints of 6 We reject Snyder’s argument that the ALJ disregarded the Appeals Council’s order on remand to recontact Dr. Oliverio about her opinion on Snyder’s functional capacity assessment. Based on Dr. Oliverio’s May 1, 2007 follow up letter to the ALJ, it is clear the ALJ complied with the remand instructions. 10 pain. According to Snyder, she suffers from pain in her arms, legs and liver and from extreme fatigue that causes her to sleep for a couple hours several times during the day. She also testified that, between 2000 and 2003, she had difficulty sitting for more than 45 minutes, could stand for about 45 minutes, could walk about two blocks and could carry no more than 40 pounds. However, her condition has gradually worsened in recent years and, at the time of the 2007 supplemental hearing, she had difficulty sitting less than a half an hour, could not stand for more than 15 minutes, could walk about 120 feet and could carry about 15 pounds. She also had lost 15 pounds since the last hearing and, at 5'8 tall, weighed only 105 pounds. In evaluating the effect of Snyder’s pain on her ability to work, the ALJ properly applied the pain standard by finding that Snyder’s underlying medical condition of Hepatitis C reasonably could be expected to produce the alleged symptoms.7 However, the ALJ failed to give explicit and adequate reasons for discrediting Snyder’s testimony about the severity of her pain and fatigue. The ALJ merely stated that Snyder’s testimony as to the intensity, persistence and 7 We apply a three-part “pain standard” when a claimant seeks to establish a disability based on testimony of pain and other symptoms. Under this pain standard, the claimant must satisfy two parts of the three-part test, which includes: “(1) evidence of an underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed pain.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). 11 limiting effects of her symptoms was “not entirely credible” and that “[h]er allegations of disabling pains in her legs, feet, and hands are not supported by the objective medical evidence of record to the extent alleged.” The ALJ did not point to any objective medical evidence contradicting Snyder’s pain allegations, but appears to discredit them based on a lack of objective medical evidence. The ALJ gave no further explanation for his decision to discredit Snyder’s testimony. Such a broad credibility finding is not sufficient under our precedent. See Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225 (explaining that an ALJ must articulate “explicit and adequate reasons” for discrediting subjective testimony and that a failure to do so “requires, as a matter of law, that the testimony be accepted as true”); Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir. 1995) (“While an adequate credibility finding need not cite particular phrases or formulations[,] broad findings that a claimant lacked credibility and could return to her past work alone are not enough . . . .” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). Furthermore, the ALJ cannot discredit Snyder’s testimony as to the intensity or persistence of her pain and fatigue solely based on the lack of objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); see also Todd v. Heckler, 736 F.2d 641, 642 (11th Cir. 1984) (explaining that pain alone may be disabling and that it is improper for an ALJ to require objective medical evidence to support a claim of 12 disabling pain). Thus, the ALJ’s credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence, and Snyder’s testimony of pain and fatigue must be accepted as true.8