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 Unpublished.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.