Adamczyk v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. The parties are directed to submit supplemental briefing on this case. The supplemental brief shall not exceed 10 pages, and both parties' memoranda shall be filed by October 5, 2018. No replies shall be allowed. See written order. (LB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 12 September, 2018 08:51:35 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DEBBIE JANE ADAMCZYK,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 17-cv-3218

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Plaintiff Debbie Jane Adamczyk appeals from the denial of her
application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the
Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, 1381a and 1382c. This
appeal is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c). Adamczyk
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 12). The Defendant
Commissioner filed a Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 16). The parties
consented to proceed before this Court. Consent to the Exercise of
Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge and Reference Order
entered November 27, 2017 (d/e 7).
Adamczyk claims that the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) credibility
determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff’s
Page 1 of 4

Memorandum of Law in Support of a Motion for Summary Judgment
(Social Security) (d/e 13) (Adamczyk Memorandum), at 9. Adamczyk
particularly challenges the ALJ’s reliance on his observations of Adamczyk
at the hearing. See Adamczyk Memorandum, at 10-12.
The ALJ noted certain observations of Adamczyk at the hearing and
made findings based on those observations:
During the hearing the claimant twice testified that the
absolute maximum time she could remain seated was sixty (60)
minutes. However, the hearing started at 9:38:57 a.m. and
ended at 10:54:05 a.m. (both times according to the audio
recording of the hearing) and the claimant remained seated,
with no signs of distress, during that entire time. This had the
claimant sitting (without signs of distress) for one hour and
fifteen minutes. Such a clear inconsistency between the actual
and the alleged does not lead to persuasive testimony and
brings all other subjective statements regarding degrees of
limitations into question.
Additionally, during the hearing the undersigned had the
opportunity to observe the claimant's general demeanor, voice
intonations, expressions and reaction to questions and
situations. Based on these observations, and the specific
example given above, the undersigned finds the subjective
statements of the claimant inconsistent with the objective
medical record and unpersuasive. Based on this finding, the
undersigned gives little weight to the claimant's subjective
statements. Additionally, based on the axiom that no opinion
can have greater persuasiveness than that of the information
upon which the opinion is based, the undersigned additionally
gives little weight to any opinion (medical or otherwise) which is
based solely or primarily on the subjective statements of the
claimant.

Page 2 of 4

Certified Transcript of Proceedings before the Social Security
Administration (d/e 9), at 29-30.
The Court directs the parties to submit supplemental memoranda on
the appropriateness of these findings by the ALJ. Specifically, the parties
are directed to address whether this finding complied the SSR 16-3p, and
particularly whether the finding complied with the requirement in SSR 16-3p
that an ALJ shall not assess the overall truthfulness of a claimant as would
be done in a court of law:
Adjudicators must limit their evaluation to the individual's
statements about his or her symptoms and the evidence in the
record that is relevant to the individual's impairments. In
evaluating an individual's symptoms, our adjudicators will not
assess an individual's overall character or truthfulness in the
manner typically used during an adversarial court litigation. The
focus of the evaluation of an individual's symptoms should not
be to determine whether he or she is a truthful person. Rather,
our adjudicators will focus on whether the evidence establishes
a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be
expected to produce the individual's symptoms and given the
adjudicator's evaluation of the individual's symptoms, whether
the intensity and persistence of the symptoms limit the
individual's ability to perform work-related activities . . . .
SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *11 (emphasis added). It appears to the
Court that the ALJ observed Adamczyk at the hearing and concluded that
nothing she said to anyone at any time had any probative value. This
appears to the Court to be an assessment of her overall truthfulness, and
so, appears to be prohibited by SSR 16-3p.
Page 3 of 4

The Commissioner cited several Seventh Circuit opinions that upheld
credibility findings based on the ALJ’s observation of the claimant at the
hearing. See Commissioner’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment (d/e 17), at 6-7 and cases cited therein. None of the
cases cited were decided after the Commissioner issued SSR 16-3p. The
parties shall also address in the supplemental briefing the impact of SSR
16-3p on the applicability of the cases cited to this case.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the parties are directed to
submit supplemental briefing on this case as directed in this Order. The
supplemental brief shall not exceed 10 pages, and both parties’
memoranda shall be filed by October 5, 2018. No replies shall be allowed.
ENTER: September 12, 2018
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 4 of 4