Social Security Disability and Credibility of Testimony

It is very important in Social Security Disability cases to testify truthfully, if not you will discredit your testimony. So often in these cases clients embellish their injuries and end up losing their case because of this. Here is an example of case that was recently appealed to the United States District Court of Michigan, the case name is Ellsworth vs Commissioner of Social Security.

The plaintiff, who is currently fifty years old, applied for a period disability and disability insurance benefits on March 3, 2004. He did not complete high school but obtained a GED, and he was employed as a paint mixer, paver, appliance repairer, machinist, and molder. The plaintiff last worked on September 15, 2003 and alleges that he became disabled on September 1,2003 as a result of emphysema, high blood pressure, arthritis, depression, and obesity. The plaintiff testified that he was laid off by his employer due to his health problems.

ALJ Blair filed a decision on May 23, 2007 in which he found the plaintiff was not disabled. The ALJ reached that conclusion by applying the five-step sequential analysis prescribed by the Secretary in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ concluded that the plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 1, 2003 (step one); the plaintiff suffered from impairments in the form of status post cervical C4/5 discectomy with anterior fusion, obesity, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, shoulder arthritis, and depression, which were “severe” within the meaning of the Social Security Act (step two); none of these impairments alone or in combination met or equaled a listing in the regulations (step three); and the plaintiff could not perform his previous work as a molder, machine loader or appliance repairer, which was found to be semi-skilled and require heavy exertion (step four). In applying the fifth step, the ALJ concluded that the plaintiff retained the functional capacity to perform a restricted range of light work. The plaintiff was to avoid using ladders, scaffolds or ropes; ramp or stair climbing more than occasionally; working in areas with moderate or greater exposure to vibrations, fume, odors, gasses, or poor ventilation; and constant handling or fingering action; and he was limited to unskilled jobs that do not involve detailed, precision, multiple, or simultaneous tasks, reading, computing, problem-solving, or prolonged exposure to the public. Relying on the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ found that there were a significant number of jobs in the regional and national economy that fit within these limitations including general office clerk, collator operator, and sorter/folder. Based on that finding and using the Medical Vocational Guidelines found at 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 § 201.21 as a framework, the ALJ concluded that the plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Following the decision by the ALJ, the plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council, which denied the plaintiff’s request for review on November 28, 2007.

A person is not disabled merely because his limitation prevents him from performing his previous work, if that person can perform other “substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).

The ALJ concluded, however, that the plaintiff overstated his disability due to pain, and therefore he discounted his testimony. In evaluating a claimant’s complaints of pain and description of his limitations, the ALJ quite properly may consider the claimant’s credibility. See Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997); Kirk v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 667 F.2d 524, 538 (6th Cir. 1981). In assessing the credibility of a witness, personal observations are important. In fact, it is one of the reasons underlying the preference for live testimony. See 2 McCormick on Evidence § 245, at 94 (4th ed. 1992); cf. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 63-64 (1980), abrogated on other grounds by Crawford v. Washington,541 U.S. 36 (2004). Thus, an ALJ, who has observed a witness’s demeanor while testifying, should be afforded deference when his credibility findings are assessed. See Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 475-76 (6th Cir. 2003); Villarreal v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,818 F.2d 461, 463 (6th Cir. 1987).

Information provided by the Michigan Social Security Disability Attorneys at Allan W. Ben, PC. For more information on collecting compensation from Social Security, click on our Social Security resource page. If you need help obtaining Social Security, contact us today.