From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stolz v. Barnhart

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
May 18, 2004
Civil Action No. 03-4131 (E.D. Pa. May. 18, 2004)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 03-4131.

May 18, 2004


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Cross-Motions for summary judgment in this Social Security case, in which plaintiff Lorraine M. Stolz has been denied benefits. United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, to whom the case was referred, has filed a report and recommendation to the effect that the denial of benefits should be reversed, and the case remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Judge Rueter identified two notable errors in the ALJ's analysis: the hypothetical question to the vocational expert omitted some of the more serious of plaintiff's medical conditions (her need to carry breathing apparatus supplying oxygen, and the requirement that she function in an atmosphere free of a very wide range of chemical contaminants); and the ALJ's failure to accord proper weight to the evidence supplied by treating physicians. Plaintiff now requests that the case be remanded for an award of benefits, rather than for further proceedings, on the theory that the ALJ's denial of benefits is devoid of substantial evidentiary support in the record.

I have carefully reviewed the entire record and have concluded that the plaintiff is correct.

After reviewing the testimony of claimant and her husband, the ALJ stated

"The objective medical evidence contained in the record supports the conclusions of the claimant's physicians that she has organic brain syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, asthma, multiple chemical sensitivities with environmental sensitivities, vasodepressor syncope, migraines, hypothyroidism, abnormal pituitary function, decreased adrenal function, hormone deficiency, Cushing's Syndrome, myalgia and myositis, anxiety and depression (citing exhibits). This evidence further supports a finding that these medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce claimant's symptoms."

The ALJ nevertheless concluded that plaintiff and her husband exaggerated her symptoms and that her disabilities were not as severe as they testified. The ALJ characterized the objective medical findings as "relatively unimpressive." That view was supported only by a careful parsing of the medical reports in the record, and selecting isolated excerpts to show that, in some respects, plaintiff's condition was normal ("normal memory and speech to sound perception" . . . an x-ray of the plaintiff's right shoulder was normal . . .")

A particularly egregious example of this selective reading of the record is the statement

"A recent examination on January 28, 2002, for the claimant's complaints of chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, headaches, and problems with memory, concentration, decision making and depression was essentially normal except for a flat and mildly depressed affect, diffuse muscle tenderness to deep pressure, and some difficulty raising the arms (Exhibit B20F)."

The exhibit to which reference was made is a report of Harold A. Buttram, of the Woodlands Healing Research Center, which concludes as follows:

"In 1996, she had a total health breakdown and has been severely limited in her activities since that time, as reviewed in more detail in my office notes.

My clinical diagnoses include:

Chronic fatigue syndrome (Code # 78071) Fibromyalgia (7291) Toxic encephalopathy with organic brain syndrome (7809) Steroid-induced Cushing's syndrome (2550) Depression (29622) Migraine headaches (3469) Multiple chemical sensitivities (9953)
It is my opinion that this patient is totally and permanently disabled."

All of the treating physicians opined that the plaintiff is indeed disabled. There is no medical evidence to the contrary. The record establishes that plaintiff is entitled to benefits.

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of May 2004, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

3. JUDGMENT is entered in favor of plaintiff. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for the calculation and award of benefits.


Summaries of

Stolz v. Barnhart

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
May 18, 2004
Civil Action No. 03-4131 (E.D. Pa. May. 18, 2004)
Case details for

Stolz v. Barnhart

Case Details

Full title:LORRAINE M. STOLZ v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: May 18, 2004

Citations

Civil Action No. 03-4131 (E.D. Pa. May. 18, 2004)