Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-CV-73472-DT
September 13, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is presently before the court on Magistrate Judge Thomas A. Carlson's Report and Recommendation of May 23, 2002. The magistrate judge recommends that the court grant plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, deny defendant's motion for summary judgment, and remand the matter for an award of benefits. Defendant has filed objections to the report and recommendation, and plaintiff has responded to defendant's objections. The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and recommendation to which a specific objection has been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
In reviewing a denial of social security disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income, the court's role is limited under 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) to determining whether defendant's decision is supported by substantial evidence. In making this determination, the court does not review the matter de novo, and it may not weigh the evidence or make credibility findings. If supported by substantial evidence, defendant's decision must be upheld even if substantial evidence also would have supported a contrary decision and even if the court may have decided the case differently in the first instance.
In the present case, plaintiff claims she is unable to work due to severe fibromyalgia. Plaintiff claims she has been unable to work since June 19, 1998, due to symptoms of fatigue, pain, muscle spasms and tremors in her arms, legs, hands and back, as well as daily, severe headaches and dizzy spells. Plaintiff has other medical problems as well, including mild depression and asthma, but it is the fibromyalgia that allegedly prevents her from working. Defendant concedes that plaintiff cannot perform any of her past relevant work as a nurse's aide, cook, waitress, or bartender because she is unable to lift the weights involved in those jobs. However, defendant has denied plaintiffs disability claim on the grounds that she retains the residual functional capacity to perform a limited range of light-level work with a sit/stand option. Specifically, the ALJ found that plaintiff is capable of working as a cashier, assembler, or general non-construction laborer.
In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ rejected plaintiffs testimony regarding the severity of her symptoms. To justify this negative assessment of plaintiffs credibility, the ALJ pointed to the overall lack of objective medical findings. While this is a difficult case, the court believes that the ALJ's credibility assessment, and his ultimate conclusion regarding plaintiffs ability to work, is not supported by substantial evidence.
First, there is no doubt that plaintiff does suffer from fibromyalgia. Indeed, the ALJ specifically found that plaintiff has depression and fibromyalgia, and that both constitute severe impairments. See Tr. 23, finding #3.
Second, as the magistrate judge notes, courts have recognized that fibromyalgia can be disabling even in the absence of objectively measurable signs and symptoms. See Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305, 306 (7th Cir. 1996) ("Its cause or causes are unknown, there is no cure, and, of greatest importance to disability law, its symptoms are entirely subjective. There are no laboratory tests for the presence or severity of fibromyalgia"); Preston v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 854 F.2d 815, 818 (6th Cir. 1988) (noting that "physical examinations will usually yield normal results — a full range of motion, no joint swelling, as well as normal muscle strength and neurological reactions"); Runyon v. Apfel, 100 F. Supp.2d 447, 450 (E.D. Mich. 1999) ("With fibromyalgia claimants, the disability determination is more necessarily complicated because normal clinical test results do not necessarily suggest the absence of a disability"). It is therefore nonsensical to discount a fibromyalgia patient's subjective complaints on the grounds that objective medical findings are lacking.
Third, in this particular case, the medical records are replete with plaintiffs longstanding complaints of disabling pain, weakness, dizziness, tremors and spasms, none of which appear to be doubted by the physicians who have treated her. Moreover, separate physicians conducting physical examinations have noted multiple tender "muscle trigger points." See Tr. 195 ("multiple very tender muscle trigger points in the back, neck, legs and arms diffusely"); Tr. 279 ("I find all 18 trigger points for fibromyalgia as being mild to markedly positive").
Fourth, plaintiffs treating physician, Dr. William Kerr, M.D., has characterized plaintiffs fibromyalgia as "severe" (Tr. 217, 219), and he indicated plaintiffs "disability will most likely be permanent" (Tr. 227). Elsewhere in the record Dr. Kerr indicated that plaintiff has "frequent severe muscle pains spasms in her back legs causing major disability" (Tr. 229). Another one of plaintiffs treating physicians, Dr. Craig Moss, M.D., indicated in response to questions from plaintiffs attorney that plaintiffs pain, fatigue and weakness prevents her maintaining a regular work schedule (Tr. 293).
Under these circumstances, the court concludes that the administrative decision in this matter is not supported by substantial evidence. Neither the ALJ's rejection of plaintiff s subjective complaints nor his finding that plaintiff can perform a limited range of light work on a full-time basis is supported by the record. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation of May 23, 2002, is accepted and adopted as the findings and conclusions of the court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Commission of Social Security for an award of benefits retroactive to June 19, 1998.