You will see a great deal of discussion about "credibility" in regards to Social Security disability applications and appeals, especially hearings.
Credibility basically just means that the claimant's statements, claims and testimony are reasonable and believable.
Credibility should also be viewed this way: The allegations or testimony made by the claimant should match up reasonably with the objective medical evidence.
For example, if a claimant testifies that he can walk no more than 100 feet because of severe back and knee pain, but recent MRIs show no problems with the spine or knee joints, this may cause a decision maker to doubt the credibility of the allegations. The claimant may simply come across as exaggerating the severity of his symptoms.
Up until March 2016, it was up to the administrative law judge to determine whether the claimant's testimony about symptoms was credible. However, Social Security Ruling 16-03p now instructs judges not to evaluate the claimant's credibility regarding symptoms but to rely more on the objective medical evidence.
So, the standard template language in denial decisions that now reads, "...the claimant's allegations [about symptoms] are not considered to be fully credible," will have to change.
I still believe it is very important for claimants to provide truthful, detailed testimony about their symptoms and to avoid any form of exaggeration. I continue to be of the opinion that credibility is one of the key components of a favorable Social Security disability claim, SSR 16-03p notwithstanding.
Credibility basically just means that the claimant's statements, claims and testimony are reasonable and believable.
Credibility should also be viewed this way: The allegations or testimony made by the claimant should match up reasonably with the objective medical evidence.
For example, if a claimant testifies that he can walk no more than 100 feet because of severe back and knee pain, but recent MRIs show no problems with the spine or knee joints, this may cause a decision maker to doubt the credibility of the allegations. The claimant may simply come across as exaggerating the severity of his symptoms.
Up until March 2016, it was up to the administrative law judge to determine whether the claimant's testimony about symptoms was credible. However, Social Security Ruling 16-03p now instructs judges not to evaluate the claimant's credibility regarding symptoms but to rely more on the objective medical evidence.
So, the standard template language in denial decisions that now reads, "...the claimant's allegations [about symptoms] are not considered to be fully credible," will have to change.
I still believe it is very important for claimants to provide truthful, detailed testimony about their symptoms and to avoid any form of exaggeration. I continue to be of the opinion that credibility is one of the key components of a favorable Social Security disability claim, SSR 16-03p notwithstanding.
Comments
Post a Comment