Case Study 6

Claimant: Female, 61 years old.

Occupation: engineering clerk for large telephone service provider.  The job involved internal accounting and administrative support for systems engineers.  The claimant served in the military for over 1 year in the late 1960’s as a stateside protocol provider.

Education: High School Diploma

Hearing info: Claimant applied for benefits in June 2004, alleged onset date of November 1, 2001.  Hearing was held in August, 2008 at the north Atlanta ODAR.

Background: My client complained of chronic pain from fibromyalgia.  She had a long medical history including several non-surgical procedures on both knees as well as a left knee replacement. Since 2001, the claimant has been treated by a local pain management facility, where she was prescribed numerous medications.  My client complained of frequent migraine headaches and shoulder pain.

Also: The record contained a consultative psychological report ordered by Social Security that identified attention and concentration problems related to work stress. This is important because this CE plays a large role in the outcome of the case.

Analysis: the judge was very polite and pleasant, but somewhat quiet and formal.  He appears to be conservative in granting benefits, but quite understanding if the claimant has strong work history, regular medical treatment and documentation from a treating physician. All of these factors were present in this case.

After meeting my client, I was convinced she suffered much pain and would have extreme difficulty holding down any job. I felt, however, that my client had decided she was disabled and that she did not desire to return to work.  I saw a serious risk here because some judges do not favor clients that have an “attitude of entitlement.”  On the other hand, let’s face it, my client would not be an appealing work candidate at age 61 with multiple medical problems.

The judge asked me to “examine your witness, if you wish.”  I started by going over her past education and work history. Then I moved to the various medical problems.  My client answered questions well, although she frequently used terms such as “not that much” or “not very far.”  She also testified that her pain level was a 9 on a 10 point scale, which many judges do not find credible. I tried to focus on her activities, not her opinions. My client was effective in painting a picture of herself as a woman experiencing chronic pain and poor sleep.

The judge asked my client a few questions, then asked  me if we would consider amending our onset date to December, 2004, which was the date of the psychological consultative evaluation I mentioned earlier.  I requested a recess, discussed this with my client and her husband, and agreed to the modification.  This resulted in removing about a year of past-due benefits.

The judge accepted our amended onset date, turned to the vocational expert (VE) and asked a hypothetical.  The question had a person with the claimant’s age, education and work background who was limited to light work (able to sit for 6 out of 8 hours during a day, able to stand 6 out of 8 hours during a day), able to lift 10 lbs. regularly and 15 lbs. occasionally.  The hypothetical person had non-exertional impairments, marked problems with attention and concentration and a likelihood of decompensation due to stress in a work setting.  Based on this hypothetical, the VE announced the claimant could not perform past work or any work.

Conclusion: This case resulted in a favorable decision. The judge focused his attention on the consultative psychological report.  He felt more comfortable relying on a single written medical report that described psychological limitations  than the claimant’s subjective complaints of pain and fatigue.