Opinion ID: 49938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Osborn’s Wife’s Statements

Text: Osborn also argues that the ALJ violated his duties when he failed to even mention Osborn’s wife’s written statements and observations about his ability to perform daily activities. Osborn argues that the social security regulations favor consideration of lay observations, even of family members, and he argues that these regulations overrule cases that have held that an ALJ implicitly evaluates the credibility of lay witnesses by explicitly evaluating the credibility of the claimant. We have held that an ALJ must “state specifically the weight accorded each item of evidence and the reasons for his decision.” Gibson v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1986). The testimony of family members is evidence of a 25 claimant’s subjective feelings of pain. See Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 1983). Even if the ALJ fails to make an explicit credibility determination as to a family member’s testimony or statements, however, we will not find error if the credibility determination was implicit in the rejection of the claimant’s testimony. Id. at 1254-55, citing Allen v. Schweiker, 642 F.2d 799 (5th Cir. 1981). In Allen, the petitioner challenged the ALJ’s denial of disability insurance benefits on the ground that the ALJ failed to make an adequate finding of fact regarding the credibility of his former wife’s testimony. Allen, 642 F.2d at 801. Both the petitioner and his wife testified as to his disability at the hearing. The judge specifically found that Allen's testimony, the primary evidence in support of his alleged disability, was not credible. Id. No such finding, however, was made as to the testimony of Allen’s former spouse. Nevertheless, the court found that the ALJ’s credibility determination as to the spouse was clearly implied by the explicit ruling as to Allen's testimony. Id. In the instant case, Osborn’s wife submitted, as part of Osborn’s “Disability Report,” a third party statement indicating that Osborn’s condition, described as frequent urination and bowel movements, abdominal pain and cramping, a swollen prostate, and an inability to walk any distance without severe pain, prevented him 26 from working. She stated that Osborn stayed at home most of the time, but was able to use a computer for a couple of hours each day and did most of the cooking, as well as laundry and loading and unloading the dishwasher. Like in Allen, “[w]hile the findings in this case could be improved upon,” the ALJ clearly rejected Osborn’s subjective testimony regarding the disabling nature of his condition, and, therefore, while the ALJ could have mentioned Mrs. Osborn’s statements, we conclude that the ALJ’s specific and explicit credibility determination as to Osborn’s testimony sufficiently implies a rejection of Mrs. Osborn’s testimony as well. Allen, 642 F.2d at 801.