“Social Security Legal Update”

In the case of Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) the court held that the Social Security judge failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for finding that the claimant’s alleged pain and symptoms were not credible. The court found that the Social Security judge’s finding that the claimant’s testimony conflicted with the medical opinion in the record ignored the opinion of the claimant’s treating physicians who were supportive of his complaints. The claimant had returned to work for a nine week period of time and the Social Security judge found that the brief return to work was proof that the claimant’s pain was not disabling. The court found, however, that the attempt at unsuccessful return to work due to difficult financial circumstances was not a clear or convincing reason to find that the claimant was not disabled and therefore the Social Security judge was required to include the limitations, suffered by the claimant, and assessing his residual functional capacity. Since the judge failed to make that assessment then his opinion was not supported by substantial evidence and the court noted that the vocational expert testimony that there were no jobs the claimant could perform within the limitations alleged by the claimant was sufficient to award benefits. The claimant, accordingly, was given benefits in that particular case.

It appears to me that the Lingenfelter case is important in not penalizing claimants who attempt to return to work due to the necessity of paying everyday bills such as mortgage payments or light bills. Clearly, an attempt to return to work should not be used to punish the claimant given the existence of dire financial straights.