Credibility, social security disability, and claimant

It is a phenomena that constantly bemuses me; the concept of credibility and how it appears in the  Administrative Law Judge’s decision denying a claimant’s disability claim.  Findings that the claimant’s ability to care for his hobby chicken coop, ability to keep the residence clean, prepare meals, even heat and eat meals, activities such as going to church, text, etc.  Especially because the Courts have had trouble with the issue.  Consider the following, Thomas v. Sullivan, 876 F2d. 666 @ 669 (8^th Cir. 1989) the Court noted:

        “First, we note that a claimant need not prove she is bedridden or completely helpless to be found disabled. Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 463 F.2d 38, 41 n. 6 (2d Cir.1972); Hall v. Celebrezze, 314 F.2d 686, 690 (6th Cir.1963). Second, we remind the Secretary that to find a claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a certain type of work, the claimant must have the ability to perform the requisite acts day in and day out, in the sometimes competitive and stressful conditions in which real people work in the real world. McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1147 (8th Cir.1982) (en banc). Substantial gainful activity means the performance of substantial services with reasonable regularity either in competitive or self-employment. Markham v. Califano, 601 F.2d 533, 534 (10th Cir.1979). The ability to do light housework with assistance, attend church, or visit with friends on the phone does not qualify as the ability to do substantial gainful activity.”

Leckenby v Astrue, 487 F3d. 626 (8^th Cir. 2007) and Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F3d. 917 (8^th Cir. 2005) have similar holding concerning activities of day living.  While Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F3d 842 (8^th Cir.2007), and Halverson v Astrue, 600 F3d 922 (8^th Cir. 2010) put significant weight upon claimant’s testimony concerning his ability to do such activities.

On the other hand - consider Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F3d 922 (8^th Cir. 2010):   

 "We have held that acts which are inconsistent with a claimant's assertion of disability reflect negatively upon that claimant's credibility." Heino, 578 F.3d at 881. Moreover, "acts such as cooking, vacuuming, washing dishes, doing laundry, shopping, driving, and walking, are inconsistent with subjective complaints of disabling pain." Medhaug, 578 F.3d 805. Cf. Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 923-24 (8th Cir.2005) "This court has repeatedly observed that the ability to do activities such as light housework and visiting with friends provides little or no support for the finding that a claimant can perform full-time competitive work.". In this case, because the record contains several inconsistencies as to Halverson's disability, the ALJ did not err. Heino, 578 F.3d at 881. While Halverson argues the ALJ overstated the extent of her daily activities, the record indicates the ALJ's credibility assessment was proper. Mouser, 545 F.3d at 638 “

Credibility, of a person testifying, is the extent to which his/her statements about pain, etc., can be relied upon as probative evidence in determining if the person is impaired to the extent complained. In general terms, credibility is the believability of the claimant as to his/her extent of impairment. 

This is essential in cases where the record establishes a basis for the symptoms, but the symptoms are subjective to the claimant, i.e., pain.

A person wanting to obtain social security disability benefits has a burden to prove that he/she cannot be employed at any job that is within that person’s functional capacity.  This tends to push a claimant to exaggerate his/her limitations. Because of a probability that this will take place in any one case, social security demands that the adjudicator make a determination as to the claimant’s credibility.

SSR 96-7p states that:

“Because symptoms, such as pain, sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone, the adjudicator must carefully consider the individuals statements about symptoms with the rest of the relevant evidence in the case…”

To do this the ruling sets forth a highly detailed regulated guide for evaluating testimony. In its introduction it provides:

“PURPOSE:  The purpose of this Ruling is to clarify when the evaluation of symptoms, including pain, under 20 CFR 404.1529 …requires a finding about the credibility of an individual’s statements about pain or other symptom(s) and its functional effects; to explain the factors to be considered in assessing the credibility of the individual’s statements about symptoms; and to state the importance of explaining the reasons for the findings about the credibility of the individual’s statements in the disability determination or decision.”

To carry out the burden placed upon the adjudicator it provides that a determination by the adjudicatory must be founded upon consideration of the entire case record.

On its face, the ruling appears to indicate that a claimant, who has medical findings that demonstrate the existence of an impairment that could produce pain, may be found disabled on nothing more than the strength of the claimant’s allegations, if the allegations are found credible.

 

In many cases it is not that cut and dried.  The ruling and regulation places the burden upon the adjudicator to evaluate the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms.  To do that the adjudicator must review the whole file, medical records, witness statements, third party statements, consultants and the claimant’s testimony, be it at the hearing or from forms the claimant previously filled out and submitted at an earlier level in the case.  These cases usually cover years of treatment, numerous documents and experiences, and statements that get into the medical records that have nothing to do with treatment..

Here is where the rub comes into play.  The medical reports contain the treating physician’s opinion of limitations placed upon the claimant because of claimant’s impairment.   Claimant, in subsequent visits to the doctor, has done many things and reports them to the doctor.  One case, the claimant reported swimming all day long in Hawaii (actually he had been on a floatation device for a good portion of the morning and moved around occasionally by moving his hands and arms in the water).  The judge found a basis for the client’s pain, but also ruled the claimant testimony showed that the doctor’s limitations lack credibility.