Among other issues, on appeal the claimant argued that the ALJ
should have given his social worker’s opinion controlling weight (see Mar. 18,
2014, blog entry below regarding acceptable medical sources). The magistrate judge noted that: “Several
courts have concluded that where a licensed social worker or other unacceptable medical
source is working as part of a treatment team and an acceptable medical source
has ‘signed off’ on the opinions, they should be evaluated as a treating
physician opinion, but that does not appear to be the case here.”
In this instance, Social Security responded: “Dr. MacAuley
did not sign Mr. Greenfield's opinion and while her name is written on the
report in the space for ‘treating psychiatrist,’ it appears to be in the same
handwriting as the remainder of the report, which was prepared by Mr. Greenfield.”
The magistrate judge agreed that there was no evidence that the social worker’s
opinions had been endorsed by the psychiatrist.
The claimant also objected to the ALJ’s conclusion that the
claimant was not credible. The
magistrate judge noted:
“While plaintiff contends that he cannot read or
write, the ALJ recounted that plaintiff’s allegations regarding his ability to
read and write contained numerous inconsistencies. . . . For example, the ALJ
found it suspicious that plaintiff did not claim illiteracy in either of the
prior disability applications that are part of the record. . . . In fact, as
the ALJ noted . . . plaintiff specifically indicated that he could read and
write English in the May 2006 adult disability report. . . . The ALJ further noted
that plaintiff’s allegation of illiteracy was inconsistent with his school
record, which documented that he received a grade of "B-" in reading .
. . and that plaintiff was able to obtain his driver’s license in spite of
alleged difficulties reading or writing . . . . While there were contrary
indications in the record that supported plaintiff’s claim that he could not
read or write, the ALJ’s credibility determination is entitled to substantial
deference; and here, the ALJ has cited substantial evidence to support his
conclusion that plaintiff’s illiteracy claim was not entirely credible.”
While illiteracy, like many other concepts, has legal definitions, many people may mistakenly use the term to describe difficulties with reading and/or writing.
Social Security
regulations define illiteracy in 20 CFR 404.1564(b): “(1) Illiteracy. Illiteracy
means the inability to read or write. We consider someone illiterate if the
person cannot read or write a simple message such as instructions or inventory
lists even though the person can sign his or her name. Generally, an illiterate
person has had little or no formal schooling.”
Because it is difficult to know what we don’t know especially when legal meanings are involved, it helps to have sounding boards, such as a personal advocate and a disability representative. In any case, errors made initially on Social Security forms need to be identified and addressed as soon as possible.
The result of not presenting a consistent functional ability statement can be a denial.
Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security, Case No. 13-10420 (D. E.D. Mich., S. Div., Feb. 17, 2014).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7618212488224661100&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.