Dysthymic Disorder
Resources in this Category
| Title | Date | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dupuis V. Sec'y HHS An ALJ's credibility determinations are owed "considerable deference." Claimant did not seek medical treatment during the time in question therefore there was no credible medical evidence supporting claim of pain during that time period. Appeals Council in this own motion review, did not have to defer to the ALJ's interpretation. Complaints of pain need not be precisely corroborated by objective findings, but they must be consistent with medical findings. Where there is no credible medical evidence to support claim of pain, the Appeals Council does not have to defer to the ALJ's interpretation. Court upholds ALJ's finding that claimant's severe dysthymic disorder met listing 12.04. Where claimant did not seek medical treatment for pain, there was no credible evidence supporting the claim of pain. Complaints of pain need not be precisely corroborated by objective findings, but they must be consistent with medical findings. | 1/1/1989 | ||
| Figueroa-Rodriquez V. Sec'y HHS Dysthymic disorder is severe impairment. To determine the severity of a mental impairment, an ALJ must rate the degree of functional loss in four areas that the SSA has identified as essential to work: 1) activities of daily living; 2) social functioning; 3) concentration, persistence, or pace; and 4) deterioration or decompensation in work or work- like settings. Substantial evidence did not support ALJ's finding of a non-severe mental impairment where medical advisor's uncontradicted assessment that claimant had moderate restrictions in activities of daily living. Substantial evidence did not support ALJ's finding of a non-severe mental impairment where medical advisor's uncontradicted assessment that claimant had moderate restrictions in activities of daily living. | 1/1/1988 | ||
| Gray V. Heckler Approves administrative notice of occupational reference materials for information regarding various types of work. Court notes that the 4th circuit has held that the Secretary may rely on general categories in the Supplement to the DOT as presumptively applicable to the claimant's past work. Claimant's burden to prove an inability to perform her former type of work. necessarily includes an obligation to produce evidence on that issue. Claimant must not only show that she cannot do her former job, she must demonstrate that she cannot return to her former type of work. Opinions of non-examining consulting physicians are entitled to weight. Physician's conclusory statements about claimant's disability not binding on Secretary. The Secretary can rely on a job held more than 10 years ago in determining whether claimant can return to prior work. In order to meet burden at step 4, claimant must establish that she cannot return to her former type of work, not just her inability to return to a particular past job. | 1/1/1985 | ||





