Opinion ID: 168285
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dysthymia

Text: The ALJ declined to consider M r. Blea’s claim that his dysthymia disabled him as of June 1997, noting: a review of the medical record failed to provide any docum entation of alleged depression or treatment for depression before D r. Padilla’s evaluation of the claimant on August 28, 2002. M r. Blea reported long21 standing depression in that examination interview but the record did not support the claimant’s subjective report. Due to the complete lack of treatment or even the report of depression prior to December 1998, this impairment is not considered prior to the claimant’s date last insured. Aplt’s App. vol. I, at 21. M r. Blea contends that the ALJ’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence because Dr. Padilla’s evaluation specifically noted that M r. Blea had “been dysthymic for years.” Id. at 246. Additionally, he argues that the ALJ should have called a medical advisor to “further address[] the onset of claimant’s depression.” Aplt’s Br. at 16. The Commissioner contends that the ALJ correctly disposed of M r. Blea’s dysthymia claim because M r. Blea failed to provide medical evidence of his depression prior to his last insured date. The Commissioner’s argument and the ALJ’s decision both contradict the clear dictates of SSR 83-20, which specifically provides, as an example of when an ALJ should call a medical advisor, the situation where “the onset of a disabling impairment[] occurred some time prior to the date of the first recorded medical examination.” SSR 83-20 at 3. Additionally, we note that the A LJ’s reasoning is at tension with the C ommissioner’s earlier determination that there was sufficient medical evidence for the Commissioner to determine that, as of at least M arch 1, 2002, M r. Blea’s dysthymia w as a “medically determinable impairment [] that [was] disabling,” a date prior to any treatment or report of depression. Aplt’s App. vol. I, at 18. As we described above, the ALJ “should call on the services of a medical 22 advisor when onset must be inferred.” SSR 83-20, at 3. The ALJ erred by failing to call a medical advisor “in the absence of clear evidence documenting the progression of [the claimant’s] condition.” Bailey, 68 F.3d at 79. Therefore, on remand, the ALJ should apply SSR 83-20 and call a medical advisor with respect to M r. B lea’s claim of dysthymia as well.