Skip to main content

Social Security Administration Awards Disability Benefits Based On Claimant's Fibromyalgia

On January 11, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Richard J. Ortiz-Valero entered a decision awarding disability insurance benefits and finding that due to her fibromyalgia the claimant was disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act.  The decision is significant in that fibromyalgia is not a "listed" impairment under the Social Security Administration's regulations.

These regulations, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, list many of the most readily diagnosed medical conditions and their symptoms which can reach a severity which is considered disabling.  In the usual case, in order to award benefits the Social Security Administration must determine that the claimant's impairment is of a severity to meet or medically equal the criteria of a "listed" impairment.

This claimant's condition had been diagnosed by several physicians as fibromyalgia ("FM").  FM affects the muscles and soft tissues.  Symptoms include chronic muscle pain, fatigue, sleep problems and painful "tender points." Fibromyalgia Center: Symptoms, Treatments, Causes, Tests, and ...

CDC estimates that as many as 15 million people may suffer from this condition.

Even though it is not a "listed" disease, the Social Security Administration has issued guidelines on how it will determine whether a claimant's FM is a disabling impairment qualifying the claimant for benefits.  SSR 12-2p  Essentially the claimant's "residual functional capacity" must be evaluated i.e. her ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis, despite limitations from her impairment.

In order to show that the claimant was disabled in this care we used the SSR 12-p guidelines to formulate a questionnaire which we sent to each of the physicians who had treated the claimant.
Among other things the questionnaire included a diagram of the eighteen (18) trigger points shown in the SSR 12-2p guidelines.  We asked the physician to describe at how many trigger points the claimant usually experienced pain.  The questionnaire also provided for an evaluation of the various activities - walking, lifting, bending, etc. - the claimant could perform so that her functional capacity could be determined.

The Administrative Law Judge determined that the claimant's residual functional capacity was less than that needed to perform her past relevant work activities and precluded other work as well.  As a result the ALJ found her to be disabled and qualified for benefits.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Federal Employee's Request for Reasonable Accommodation is a Protected Activity - Agency May Not Retaliate

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §701 et seq., protects a federal worker from discrimination because he or she has a disability.  The Act requires agencies to provide reasonable accommodation to an individual's physical or mental disabilities unless the agency can prove that the requested accommodation will create an undue hardship.  In this regard the Act incorporates the protections afforded under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which includes more recent and more detailed requirements.  Accommodation may involve the removal of physical barriers.  It may also include job restructuring and part-time or modified work schedules.  Thus, a flexible work schedule may qualify as a reasonable accommodation. Both laws expressly prohibit employers from taking retaliatory actions against employees who oppose acts or practices which are made unlawful, for making charges and/or for participating in related investigations or proceedings.  It is also unlawful to c

Circumstantial Evidence of Age and Race Discrimination

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court’s order granting summary judgment to the employer in a case alleging age and race discrimination, Kilgore v. Trussville Development, LLC dab Hilton Garden, Inc., 2016 U.S.app. LEXIS 5464; 646 Fed. Apps. 765 (11th Cir. 2016).  The text of the decision can be found at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3188580/valarie-kay-kilgore-v-trussville-development-llc/ Ms. Kilgore presented circumstantial evidence which supported an inference that the employer’s claim that she was fired for being rude to guests was a pretext.  She presented evidence that she was replaced by two newly hired employees who were younger and African-American - Ms. Kilgore was a Caucasian woman in her sixties.  In addition, her superiors had made derogatory statements about her age (that she was “a stubborn old woman” and “too old”) and also about her race (that she was “the wrong color.”  Such comments are circumstantial evidence of d

Indirect Proof of Discrimination

Title VII cases often are resolved without a trial.  Whether the District Court properly entered summary judgment for the employer is the subject of many Eleventh Circuit appeals.  A significant decision, Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) held that a triable issue of fact exists if the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents "a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decision maker."  And it is well-settled that if a plaintiff presents a prima facie case together with evidence tending to discredit the employer's proffered reasons for the alleged discriminatory action the trier of fact may reasonably conclude that the employer intentionally discriminated.  See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133 (2000) in which the U.S. Supreme Court so held, stating specifically that no additional evidence of discrimination is needed to create a