Firm Profile
photo

    We Represent People With:

  • Physical Disabilities and Impairments, Psychiatric and Mental Disorders, Bipolar, PTSD, Deafness, Blindness, HIV/Aids, Cancer, Epilepsy, Schizophrenia, Depression, Mental Retardation, Cerebral palsy, Multiple Sclerosis, Diabetes, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Herniated Disk, Fibromyalgia, Lupus, Arthritis, Stroke, Seizures, Hepatitis, Heart and Lung disease, Meniere's Disease, Crohn's Disease, Colitis, L.B.S., Myasthenia Gravis, Severe Headaches and Sleep Disorders, Amputation, Vocational Disabilities, MRSA who have wrongfully been denied their benefits.
Home :: FAQ :: Physicians Issues and Answers

In making his or her decision, is there any form of analytical process the judge must use in determining whether or not the claimant may be entitled to benefits?

Yes.  In making his finding the ALJ should consider all symptoms to the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929 and SSRs 96-4p and 96-79,  In the 11th Circuit, a claimant who alleges disability on subjective complaints of pain must show evidence of an underlying medical condition, and either: (1) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged pain from that condition; or (2) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such a severity that it can reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged pain (Landry v. Heckler, 782 F 1551 (11th Cir. 1986)) and also consider the opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 and SSRs 96-2p, 96-5p, 96-6p, and 06-3p.

After considering the evidence of record, the ALJ should find that the claimant’s medically determinable impairment(s) could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms and that the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms are generally credible.

The Contrary State agency medical opinions are given little weight because the State agency consultants did not adequately consider the claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, which should appear credible in light of the objective and clinical findings noted above.  The State agency also failed to consider the combined effect of all of the claimant’s impairments, including the recent evidence submitted by the claimant.