Court Opinion

ID: 9619644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:30:53.306537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:43.072301
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON REHEARING

Domingo Lugo brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying Lugo’s application for disability insurance benefits. By Opinion and Order dated March 13, 1996 (the “Order”), I remanded this action for further administrative proceedings. Defendant has timely moved for a rehearing and asks me to reconsider my finding that the Commissioner improperly evaluated plaintiffs complaints of pain. For the following reasons, I affirm my decision to remand this action for further consideration.
The Commissioner contends that I erroneously relied on the Second Circuit’s holding in Marcus v. Califano, 615 F.2d 23, 27 (2d Cir.1979), and that this case has been superseded by subsequent regulations. I agree with the Commissioner that 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929, enacted after Marcus, do provide that (1) pain alone cannot establish disability, as that term is defined in section 223(d)(1) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1), and (2) a petitioner must offer some medical evidence to support a claim of pain as a disabling condition.
Nevertheless, as Lugo’s counsel correctly points out in his responsive letter of April 16, *5051996, my decision to remand on this issue was not based solely on Marcus or its progeny. I found that the ALJ had ignored conflicting medical reports, some of which did provide a reasonable explanation of Lugo’s pain, and had failed to explain why he credited some reports over others. I further found that the ALJ had mischaracterized Lugo’s direct testimony about his physical abilities. I did not instruct the Commissioner, and I do not instruct her now, to accept Lugo’s complaints of pain as conclusive proof of a disability. Instead, I simply directed the Commissioner to provide a more detailed explanation of her findings based on accurate and complete characterizations of the record.
As noted in petitioner’s letter, the Commissioner’s own regulation, Social Security Ruling 95-5p, 60 Fed.Reg. 55406-07 (1995), provides that:
“in all eases in which pain or other symptoms are alleged, the determination or decision rationale must contain a thorough discussion and analysis of the objective medical evidence and the other evidence, including the individual’s complaints of pain or other symptoms and the adjudicator’s personal observations. The rationale must include a resolution of any inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole and set forth a logical explanation of the individual’s ability to work____”
In this case, the ALJ did not provide such an analysis, and this omission can and should be addressed on remand.
Having thus reconsidered my earlier Order, I affirm my decision to remand this case for further consideration of all issues discussed therein, including Lugo’s complaints of pain.
SO ORDERED.