Disability claimant's subjective statements wrongly discounted.

Byline: Barry Bridges

In deciding on an application for Social Security disability benefits, an administrative law judge committed error by giving substantial evidentiary weight to the opinion of a non-examining physician to the exclusion of the applicant's longtime primary care physician, whose opinion was based on both medical records and the plaintiff's subjective statements describing the intensity and functional impact of her chronic pain.

That is according to a recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan, who found that the claimant's statements about her symptoms should have been scrutinized as part of the entire case record.

Since a botched laparoscopic surgery in 2013, the plaintiff-claimant, Dianne D., has persistently suffered from constant abdominal pain that waxes and wanes from moderate to severe. No treating provider or medical expert has been able to diagnose the cause of the pain.

The plaintiff last worked in 2016, and her treating physician, Dr. John Bergeron, opined that her pain so impacts her ability to function that she cannot work in any capacity.

However, Dr. Mitchell Pressman was engaged to perform a file review of the medical evidence. He minimized Dianne's subjective statements about her pain, concluding that she could perform a full range of light work.

Giving more credence to Pressman's conclusion, the ALJ denied Dianne's application for disability benefits.

But Sullivan called out the ALJ for discounting the opinion of Bergeron, which took into account both medical and subjective evidence based on years of observations and face-to-face examinations with his patient.

"Dr. Bergeron's opinion is consistent not just with his own treating notes, but also with the balance of the treating medical report in that every...