Opinion ID: 569210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Social Security Guidelines

Text: 32 The measure of an individual's pain cannot be easily reduced to a matter of neat calculations. There are no x-rays that can be taken that would objectively show the precise level of agony that an individual is experiencing. Hence, in evaluating the intensity and persistence of pain, both physicians and laymen alike, must often engage in guesswork. The Secretary's own guidelines acknowledge the most inexact nature of this evaluation: 33 Medical history and objective medical evidence such as evidence of muscle atrophy, reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory and motor disruption, are usually reliable indicators from which to draw reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of pain and the effect such pain may have on the individual's work capacity. Whenever available this type of objective medical evidence must be obtained and must be considered in reaching a conclusion as to whether the individual is under a disability. 34 There are situations in which an individual's alleged or reported symptoms, such as pain, suggest the possibility of a greater restriction of the individual's ability to function than can be demonstrated by objective medical evidence alone. 35 In such cases, reasonable conclusions as to any limitations on the individual's ability to do basic work activities can be derived from the consideration of other information in conjunction with medical evidence. 6 36 We find that the Secretary has fallen short of these standards. First, the objective medical evidence revealed that Jones suffered muscle atrophy, reduced spinal motion, muscle spasms, and motor disruption. From these reliable indicators, it was reasonable for the Secretary to assume that Jones was experiencing intense pain. Nonetheless, the Secretary did not do so. In this regard, the Secretary erred. Second, assuming, arguendo, that there was a gap between Jones' reported symptoms and the objective evidence, the Secretary was required to consider other information in conjunction with the medical evidence. Here, the Secretary did not do so, cutting short its inquiry at the point where, in its opinion, objective medical evidence ended, and then wholly discounted evidence to the contrary. 37 Here, the other evidence pointed in the other direction, toward a finding of disability. The unanimous opinion of the treating physicians was that she was disabled. There were no contrary medical opinions. 7 The medical records show the persistence and severity of Jones' symptoms. 8 Moreover, Jones' testimony comported with the medical evidence. 9 In fact, there was no countervailing evidence. 38 Clearly, the Secretary's complete devaluation of the evidence supporting the existence of Jones' ailment was in error. Upon remand, the evidence, as a whole, should be evaluated in accordance with the Secretary's own guidelines.