33 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 1130, Chicago, IL 60602

5 Convenient Locations

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Youtube
Search

No attorney fee unless we win!

call us312-999-0999

Subscribe to this list via RSS Blog posts tagged in acceptable medical source

IL disability attorneyWhen reviewing Social Security disability applications, an administrative law judge (ALJ) needs to weigh the evidence offered by various medical experts. As a general rule, the ALJ should give more weight to the testimony offered by a doctor with respect to their own specialty as opposed to someone who is not. For example, if a disability applicant is unable to walk, you would credit the testimony of an orthopedic surgeon over, say, a dermatologist.

This might sound like just basic common sense. Yet there are many cases where ALJs will disregard the specialist's view in favor of a non-specialist's view–especially when the latter is willing to say the applicant's condition does not really qualify them for disability benefits. Such decision-making not only defies common sense, but it is also often in direct contravention of Social Security regulations.

Let's take this recent disability case from here in Illinois, Kathy P. v. Saul. The plaintiff in this case applied for Social Security disability benefits about five years ago. Although she suffers from a number of physical and mental impairments, the critical issue here involves her mental disorders and frequent migraines. In support of her claims, the plaintiff presented expert testimony from her treating psychiatrist. Based on her extensive treatment history, the psychiatrist told Social Security that the plaintiff “was unable to meet competitive standards for several abilities such as completing a normal workday and workweek without interruptions, accepting instructions and responding appropriately to criticism from supervisors, and dealing with normal work stress.”

...

IL disability attorneyEven if you are unable to return to your previous job due to a medical condition, Social Security will not award you disability benefits unless it is satisfied that you are incapable of performing any type of meaningful work. The opinions of your treating physician are often critical towards proving this is the case. Of course, some Social Security administrative law judges may try to “play doctor” and attempt to disregard (or misrepresent) the views of your actual physicians.

Take this recent decision from a federal magistrate judge here in Illinois, T.D.B. v. Saul. The plaintiff in this case previously worked as a registered nurse. In 2007, she suffered a serious wrist injury when she was attacked by a patient. The plaintiff's physician subsequently diagnosed her with chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS). By 2010, the physician concluded the plaintiff had “reached maximum medical improvement,” which is a legal term used in connection with workers' compensation proceedings. At the time, this meant the plaintiff would be limited to “full-time sedentary work.”

In 2012, however, the treating physician revised this diagnosis. In a separate letter to the workers' compensation insurance adjuster assigned to the plaintiff's claim, the doctor said the plaintiff was “essentially unemployable,” i.e., she was no longer medically capable of returning to work in any capacity on a full-time basis.

...

IL disability lawyerAs a general rule, your own doctor knows your medical condition best. In the context of a Social Security disability benefits hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) is therefore required to give your doctor's views “controlling weight,” so long as the doctor's opinions are supported by the available medical evidence. If the ALJ chooses to discount or disregard your doctor's diagnosis, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for that decision, which also must be supported by evidence.

Christopher C. v. Saul

What the ALJ may not do is misrepresent the evidence in order to discredit your doctor's testimony. Unfortunately, this happens more than Social Security would like to admit. Just recently, an Illinois federal magistrate judge ordered Social Security to conduct a new disability hearing precisely because an ALJ failed to follow the rules in assessing a treating physician's views.

The plaintiff in this case, Christopher C. v. Saul, suffers from physical impairments related to his left ankle and obstructive pulmonary disease. The plaintiff's treating podiatrist said that as a result of the plaintiff's impairments, he would “need to elevate his leg just above hip level about 20 to 50 percent of an eight-hour workday due to edema, pain, and inflammation.” The plaintiff would also require a cane to stand and walk and could not lift more than 10 pounds. He was also incapable of stooping, bending, crouching, squatting, or climbing stairs or ladders.

...

You are not alone. Call us now for a FREE consultation 312-999-0999

Unable to travel to one of our offices? No problem! No office visit required.

dupage county bar association Chicago abr association nosscr Super Lawyer
Back to Top