In this appeal, the claimant argued that the ALJ’s residual
functional capacity assessment did not include all of her limitations and that
the vocational expert’s testimony was based on a hypothetical that did not
include all her limitations.
The court cited medical evidence that: “Over the following twelve months between
fall of 2009 and 2010, Dr. Mason opined that the claimant was suffering from ‘severe
peripheral sensory neuropathy,’ Charcot in her right foot, and ‘quiescent
Charcot on the left.’”
The court also observed that: “Diabetic Charcot foot
arthropathy is one of the most serious foot problems that diabetics face, and
it is a result of nerve damage or neuropathy that leads to a loss of sensation
in the feet; diabetes also damages blood vessels, which decreases the blood
flow to the feet and poor circulation weakens bone, and can cause
disintegration of the bones and joints in the foot and ankle; the combination
of bone disintegration and trauma can warp and deform the shape of the foot.”
(Citations omitted.)
With regard to the issue of noncompliance with medical
advice, the court found that, “The ALJ went to great length to describe [the
claimant’s] noncompliance, even misstating and mischaracterizing some of the
evidence, and failed to discuss [the claimant’s] inability to afford the
insulin medication.”
The court ruled that the ALJ erred by failing to recognize the claimant’s “peripheral
neuropathy, including specifically her Charcot foot problems, as a severe
impairment and include limitations from these impairments, particularly related
to sitting and walking” in his residual functional capacity assessment and
hypothetical.Further the court found that “the ALJ failed to adequately discuss, in the context of Plaintiff’s noncompliance, her inability to afford her insulin and other medications, as he is required to do” and the ALJ compounded his error “by significantly mischaracterizing the records of noncompliance or citing records not in the Record at all.”
The case was remanded.
Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security, Case No. 6:13-cv-52-Orl-18DAB (D. M.D. Fla. Orlando Div., Mar. 4, 2014).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5844755478761882733&q=social+security&hl=en&as_sdt=40000003&as_ylo=2014
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment. Comments may be edited. Only general interest comments will be posted. Please do not include personally identifiable information about anyone's actual Social Security case in your comments.