Coach745 - Update

[coach745]

The first alj gave the ce examiner a lot of weight and didn’t give the counselor any weight. The 2nd alj did not give the ce   Examiner any weight and gave counselor soso weight. The counselor wrote a narrative about metal functions. That isn’t the whole RFC cut into that little bit I copied and pasted. That is from the form the lawyer gave her to fill out. The alj was going by her first function report submitted 2 and a half years ago. Her daily activities have changed quite a bit since that function report. I think it changes the way the alj looks at her back pain and mental function. Basically I think the alj was saying her mental and physical impairments can’t  be as bad if she can still do xyz. Well she can no longer do xyz. An inpatient hospitalization shouldn’t be the standard. She has mentioned to the psychiatrist she thought she needed to go but hasn’t went back. A few months ago we had to call to go in but the mental hospital did not have any rooms. I and her counselor was able to get her calmed down enough not to have to go the next day. I know the counselor isn’t a medical source but she knows her the best and sees her twice a week. She’s seen my wife on her worst days more often than anyone besides me.

[Lockdown2020]

.

[coach745]

That’s not the our main remand argument. I identified 2 I wanted attack. I don’t know if the lawyer will use them though. 
Treating Source - Opinion Not identified or Discussed &
Consultative Examiner - Inadequate Support/Rationale for Weight Given Opinion.

I don’t want to reopen a case. This is a regular Appeals Council remand. We filed the appeal within 60 days of her hearing denial.

[Lockdown2020]

.

[coach745]

I was aware but I was just throwing ideas to my lawyer. The following paragraph I wrote to my lawyer.

The ALJ improperly assigned somewhat persuasive and noted the LPC was not an acceptable medical source, although she is a treating source with a longitudinal knowledge of the claimant’s impairments.  ALJ considered statements 8F(somewhat persuasive) & 17F(unpersuasive) from the LPC. ALJ did not consider 17F because it was not function by function limitations. The LPC  submitted 10F which was a mental RFC that was function by function and not considered. 17F should be more than unpersuasive. 10F was also mentioned in the remand order and not discussed in the decision. 10F stated Mrs. ***** would miss more than 2 days a month.

Now I know under the new rules they don’t have to consider her statements. In the alj decision it mentioned she is considering them because the remand order mentioned it. Well if you’re going to consider it. Consider it all...
 

[Lockdown2020]

.

[coach745]

The alj considered the following severe impairments degenerative disc disease, obesity, affective disorder and ptsd.  The alj said the ce examiner had more severe limitations than my wife's doctor and didn't point to any examples.  I can point out at least 5 things that show the same limitations.  The alj said over 2 years of treatment notes her mood and symptoms waxed and waned.  That's pretty much all the alj said about it because the notes were hard to read.  I really wish the lawyer would have done a prehearing brief for the remand hearing.

[Lockdown2020]

.

[Lockdown2020]

.

[Lockdown2020]

.

[anetty1956]

What’s the treating source rule exactly?

[Lockdown2020]

.

[coach745]

I got the 2 remand reasons from the SSA website. Hoping my lawyer can come up with something better than I can.

https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/DataSets/AC08_Top_10_CR.html

[Lockdown2020]

.

[Lockdown2020]

.