holding that “the ALJ was required to consider at least some supporting evidence from a [medical] professional” and erred by formulating a mental RFC with only social limitations when both the treating psychiatrist and psychological consultative examiner imposed additional mental limitations, and no other medical opinions addressed the effects of plaintiff’s mental impairments found by the ALJ
How later courts described this case
- holding that “the ALJ was required to consider at least some supporting evidence from a [medical] professional” and erred by formulating a mental RFC with only social limitations when both the treating psychiatrist and psychological consultative examiner imposed additional mental limitations, and no other medical opinions addressed the effects of plaintiff’s mental impairments found by the ALJ
- concluding that an ALJ should have obtained “professional assistance” because evaluation of a claimant’s psychological impairments “was impossible without first obtaining [and interpreting] the results of three standardized psychological tests”
- recognizing that “‘[s]ome medical evidence’ must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ‘ability to function in the workplace’”
- finding that medical evidence “must support the determination of the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ‘ability to function in the workplace,’ . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LOKEN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Robert Lauer applied for benefits on November 14, 1994, claiming a disability onset date of August 31, 1993, caused by continuing pain from back, neck, leg, and arm injuries in an auto accident. His application was denied in January 1995, and he requested reconsideration in March 1995, alleging the same disabling physical impairments. After the denial was upheld on reconsideration, Lauer requested a hearing on June 12, 1995. Four days later — nearly two years after the alleged disability onset date — Lauer was examined by a psychiatrist for the first time. On August 22, 1996, three weeks after the administrative hearing, Dr. Bohrod wrote to Lauer’s attorney that Lauer “may do some independent work.” Like the district court, I conclude that the administrative record, fairly viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence süpporting the Commissioner’s decision to deny disability benefits. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.