1st Circuit SSI/SSDI Decisions
This category consists primarly of decisions, both published and unpublished, by the First Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court in SSI and SSDI cases. We have also included a handful of federal and state decisions on related topics such as Medicaid, Medicare, attorneys fees, and debt collection.
This index of decisions is currently available in 3 formats: (1) a wordperfect file with all the decisions cited, squibbed and organized by topics; (2) a pdf file with all the decisions cited, squibbed and organized by topics; and (3) the listing of cases by topic, on the left hand side of this page, with squibs and links to decisions in Westlaw. At this time, the Westlaw-linked list is limited to published decisions. We will be adding Westlaw links to the unpublished decisions over time.
Many of the decisions in this index are unpublished and are marked as such. Please see the First Circuit's Local Rule on citing unpublished decisions, posted in this section of the website, for guidance on using unpublished decisions in your advocacy.
We will update this index as new decisions are issued. If you know of a relevant decision that has not been posted, or if you find any errors in this index, please contact Barbara Siegel at bsiegel@dlc-ma.org.
Sub-Categories
Resources in this Category
| Title | Date | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| **Index of First Circuit SSI/SSDI Law (pdf) | 5/8/2003 | ||
| **Index of First Circuit SSI/SSDI Law (wordperfect) | 5/8/2003 | ||
| First Circuit Local Rule on Citing Unpublished Opinions (adopted 12/16/02) The First Circuit has amended the local rules to allow parties to cite to unpublished opinions as "persuasive authority" in certain circumstances. | 11/12/2002 | ||
| Ramos v. Barnhart, No. 02-1687, 2003 WL 1411959 (1st Cir. 3/21/03) Somatoform Disorder. Pain. Credibility. Severity. Ramos v. Barnhart, No. 02-1687,2003 WL 1411959 (1st Cir. 3/21/03). Unpublished. In a per curiam decision, the First Circuit reversed and remanded where the ALJ improperly concluded that the claimant did not have a severe mental impairment (somatoform disorder) and that pain did not pose a significant functional limitation for the claimant. The case has a good explanation of the difference between somatization disorders, which are a specific subset of somatoform disorders, and the broad category of somatoform disorders. Because this distinction was lost on the ALJ, he misinterpreted the medical evidence and erroneously substituted his own lay opinion. The decision also contains a useful discussion of the relationship between somatoform disorders and pain. The ALJ discounted the claimant’s complaints of pain, in part, because of the minimal objective medical findings to account for his subjective complaints. Rejecting this analysis, the court stated: the very diagnosis of a somatoform disorder means that claimant’s symptoms of pain ‘are not fully explained by a general medical condition.’ In other words, an individual with a diagnosis of somatoform disorder will not have hard test results or a physical impairment that can fully account for all of that person’s credible, subjective complaints. Also available on First Circuit website at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov. | 5/6/2003 | ||





