U.S. District Court finds plaintiff's psychological disorder at issue

Daily Record (Rochester, NY), Mar 19, 2004 by Helen Nguyen

Did the administrative law judge err when he determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to disability benefits based on the plaintiff's history of alcoholism?

Yes, ruled U.S. District Court Judge David G. Larimer for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York in John White v. Commissioner of Social Security. Specifically, the judge found that ample evidence existed to show that the plaintiff's inability to work had more to do with his psychological disorders than his history of alcoholism. Therefore, the case was remanded for the calculation and payment of benefits.

ALJ's Denial Of Benefits

The instant action stems from the ALJ's denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits to the plaintiff, John White, for the time period of February 2000 through May 2002.

In ruling that White was not entitled to receive benefits, the ALJ determined that White's alcoholism was a major factor in his inability to work. While medical records indicated that White had a panic disorder and a personality disorder, the ALJ concluded that many of the psychological and mental impairments that prevented White from working were a result of his dependence on alcohol.

Alcoholism Issue

Did the ALJ err when he determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to disability benefits because of his alcoholism?

The regulations provide that the 'key factor' in this analysis is whether the Commissioner would still find a person disabled if he stopped using alcohol. 20 CFR Section 416.935(b)(1), explained Judge Larimer. In this regard, the Commissioner must evaluate which of a disabled person's current physical and mental limitations would remain if plaintiff stopped using alcohol, and then determine whether those remaining limitations would be disabling. Id. at Section 416.935(b)(2).

Applying this standard, the judge found that sufficient evidence existed to support a finding that the plaintiff was disabled.

In reaching this decision, the court determined that the ALJ should have given more weight and consideration to the reports of the psychiatrist and social worker of the mental health clinic where White received treatment.

Of particular significance is the fact that the social worker and psychiatrist did not refer White for alcoholism counseling or treatment. Specifically, the social worker's reports indicated that he did not believe that drug treatment was necessary since it appeared that White was no longer abusing alcohol. The social worker opined that White's occasional use of alcohol (i.e., a few drinks once a month) was not a high enough level to refer him for treatment.

Moreover, one of the social worker's reports stated that White's panic disorder became more noticeable since he stopped abusing alcohol.

Based on the above, the court concluded, Applying the correct legal standards to all of the relevant evidence compels the conclusion that plaintiff's mental impairments would still exist even without his alcohol dependence.

Remand

Finding that the ALJ erred, the court determined that the case should be remanded.

While the Social Security Administration sought to have the case remanded so that it could review White's case, the court determined that the record was already fully developed and that there was no reason for another proceeding or hearing.

[T]o remand the case to the ALJ would result in unnecessary delay on an application that plaintiff filed almost four years ago, concluded the court. Therefore, remand is appropriate but only for the calculation and payment of benefits.