ALJ Improperly Rejected Treating Psychiatrist's Testimony
LARSON v. ASTRUE (August 3, 2010)
Lynn Larson has been suffering from anxiety and depression for years. Her already fragile condition worsened in early 2004 when she was raped and suffered several additional physical injuries. Her psychiatrist continued to describe and adjust dosages of several medications throughout this time. Larson applied for Social Security benefits in June of 2004. Her troubles continued -- she was drinking, she had a "nervous breakdown," the nephew she had been raising was taken from her home, and she was arrested for driving under the influence. Her application for benefits was denied in 2004, and again on reconsideration in 2005. Her psychiatrist submitted a new questionnaire with a diagnosis of "severe, recurrent depression." A hearing was held before an ALJ in 2007. Larson testified about her employment history -- that she quit her part-time job at a gas station because she had to hide in the bathroom, she was fired from her bus driver job after a breakdown, and that she worked two hours a week at a restaurant owned by a friend. A psychologist testified that Larson met the "A criteria" but not the "B criteria." Her psychiatrist testified that Larson met all criteria. The ALJ denied the claim. Larson appeals.
In their opinion, Judges Posner, Wood, and Hamilton reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed the ALJ's consideration of the treating psychiatrist's opinion. That opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported and an ALJ must give a good reason for not giving it such weight. The Court found that the ALJ ignored and mischaracterized certain evidence in rejecting the psychiatrist's opinion. The psychiatrist had treated Larson for several years and his opinion was consistent with the other evidence in the record. The Court concluded that the ALJ would have found Larson disabled at Step 3 had he given the psychiatrist's opinion appropriate weight. The Court found support for its conclusion in the ALJ's treatment of Larson's testimony itself. The ALJ’s adverse credibility ruling was patently wrong and could not stand.
