Opinion ID: 2994140
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Powers’ Credibility

Text: Because hearing officers are in the best position to see and hear the witnesses and assess their forthrightness, we afford their credibility determinations special deference. See Nelson v. Apfel, 131 F.3d 1228, 1237 (7th Cir. 1997). We will reverse an ALJ’s credibility determination only if the claimant can show it was patently wrong. Herr v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 178, 181 (7th Cir. 1990). In this case, the ALJ based his credibility determination on a variety of facts and observations. First, the ALJ found that Powers did indeed suffer some pain from her medical conditions, but that the medical evidence did not support the extent of pain to which she complained. Drs. Aldo-Benson and Sublett supported her complaints of fibromyalgia and pulmonary insufficiency, but did not indicate any work restrictions related to those conditions. Moreover, Sublett characterized her pulmonary condition as stable. This was enough evidence to support the claim that Powers’ ability to lift, carry and walk were limited, but not to the completely debilitating extent Powers alleged. As such, the discrepancy between the minimal impairment expected from her conditions and her testimony of debilitating pain casts doubt on her credibility. Second, the ALJ also found Powers’ testimony about her daily activities to be inconsistent with her reports of her daily activities made to Karkut and on Agency forms. He also found her claim of concentration problems inconsistent with the medical evidence and with her testimony that she can read, watch television for hours and play cards. While we are skeptical that the ability to watch television for several hours indicates a long attention span, we agree that reading and playing cards do suggest such a trait. In her discussion with Karkut, Powers reported that she sometimes helped cook meals, usually set the table and once in a while did laundry. She reported on her forms to the Agency that she did grocery shopping, went to the mall, dined out, visited with friends and played cards. At the hearing, she testified that she performed no daily activities and that her mother and husband did the cooking, washing and other household chores. This testimony is not wildly inconsistent, but represents a minor variation in her account of her daily life. The many interviews and forms required to apply for disability benefits should not be viewed as traps for slightly varied accounts of daily activities, but in this case, the minor discrepancy combined with the hearing officer’s observations of the witness during testimony does provide some small support for a finding of incredibility. As the reviewing court, we are looking only to determine if the credibility determination was patently wrong, and the hearing officer’s assessment of her mildly inconsistent testimony combined with the other evidence discussed here, defeats this strict standard for reversal. The ALJ found her complaints of severe pain to be inconsistent with the medical testimony and the absence of drugs prescribed for severe pain. While a hearing officer may not reject subjective complaints of pain solely because they are not fully supported by medical testimony, the officer may consider that as probative of the claimant’s credibility. See Knight v. Chater, 55 F.3d 309, 314 (7th Cir. 1995). The doctors who examined Powers diagnosed specific medical conditions which do cause pain, but only Eckert ever considered her to be suffering from disabling pain. The hearing officer was within his discretion to reject that opinion as conclusory and unsupported by the evidence. Furthermore, Powers had been prescribed Valium, Darvocet and Relafen, none of which are intended to treat severe pain. The discrepancy between the degree of pain attested to by the witness and that suggested by the medical evidence is probative that the witness may be exaggerating her condition. For the hearing officer to rely on this as evidence of a lack of complete candor cannot be deemed patently wrong. Finally, the hearing officer considered Powers’ statement that she could not sit for more than ten minutes without severe pain to be inconsistent with his observation of her during the hearing, at which she sat for far longer than ten minutes, apparently without signs of discomfort. Many courts have condemned the sit and squirm test, and we are uncomfortable with it as well. See, e.g., Miller v. Sullivan, 953 F.2d 417 (8th Cir. 1992); Myers v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 659 (11th Cir. 1990); Jenkins v. Sullivan, 906 F.2d 107 (4th Cir. 1990); Lovelace v. Bowen, 813 F.2d 55 (5th Cir. 1987). We doubt the probative value of any evidence that can be so easily manipulated as watching whether someone acts like they are in discomfort. However, we note that even those courts cited by Powers as opposing the sit and squirm test endorse the validity of a hearing officer’s observations of the claimant. See Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 837, 839 (11th Cir. 1992); Miller, 953 F.2d at 422; Lovejoy v. Heckler, 790 F.2d 1114, 1116 (4th Cir. 1986); Lovelace, 813 F.2d at 60. Likewise, we have repeatedly endorsed the role of observation in determining credibility and refuse to make an exception in this situation. See, e.g., Dray v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 10 F.3d 1306, 1314 (7th Cir. 1993); Erhart v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 969 F.2d 534, 541 (7th Cir. 1992); Strunk v. Heckler, 732 F.2d 1357, 1362 (7th Cir. 1984). The hearing officer had an opportunity to observe Powers for an extended period of time and could gauge whether her demeanor, behavior, attitude and other characteristics suggested frankness and honesty and were consistent with the general bearing of someone who is experiencing severe pain. Also, because the witness showed no signs of pain, there is no danger that she attempted to manipulate the hearing officer by squirming. As one of several factors that contributed to the hearing officer’s credibility determination, we cannot say this rendered that judgment patently wrong. Therefore, we will uphold the hearing officer’s credibility determination as supported by substantial evidence.