Bruce Albertson, Jr. v. Carolyn W. Colvin

MEMORANDUM *

Bruce Albertson applied for disability benefits in January 2009, claiming a chronic headache. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found that Albertson did not testi *373 fy credibly about the extent of his pain and the effect that it would have on his ability to work. Accordingly, the ALJ denied benefits. Albertson appealed, and the district court affirmed. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse and remand for an award of benefits.

BACKGROUND

' Claimant Bruce Albertson developed a sudden headache in October 2007. The pain was so severe that his wife took him to the emergency room. Albertson had no prior history of headaches, and the emergency doctors could not determine the headache’s cause. The headache has persisted ever since.

Seeking a diagnosis, Albertson consulted with a series of doctors, including at least eight neurologists, over a period of three years. The doctors were unable to settle on a conclusive diagnosis. Albertson’s pain did not improve with medication or other treatment, including an extended coursé of opiate painkillers, two occipital nerve blocks, and a radiofrequency ablation.

In January 2010, Albertson sought treatment…

I respectfully dissent.

In January 2011, the first ALJ denied benefits. More than two-and-a-half years later, a second ALJ granted benefits. In my view, the decision of the first ALJ was supported by substantial evidence and contained no legal error, and the two outcomes can be reconciled.

The majority asserts that the first ALJ ignored Claimant’s Mayo Clinic visits. That assertion is incorrect. The ALJ cited the Mayo Clinic reports in noting that Claimant gave “a history of a mass on the right side of the forehead and chronic headaches since October 2007.” AR 21. (citing AR 627). The ALJ found—consistent with the cited Mayo Clinic reports—that Claimant had the severe impairment of chronic headaches; the pivotal question was whether, in January 2011, the ALJ permissibly found that those headaches did not rise to the level of disability. In analyzing that question the ALJ again cited, among other sources in the record, the Mayo Clinic reports—when noting that Claimant’s daily activities and social interactions were not impaired by his mental or physical conditions. AR 24 (citing AR 614-28) (Mayo Clinic reports stating that Claimant reported no impairment in activity or social…

BACKGROUND

Claimant Bruce Albertson developed a sudden headache in October 2007.

The pain was so severe that his wife took him to the emergency room. Albertson

had no prior history of headaches, and the emergency doctors could not determine

the headache’s cause. The headache has persisted ever since.

Seeking a diagnosis, Albertson consulted with a series of doctors, including

at least eight neurologists, over a period of three years. The doctors were unable to

settle on a conclusive diagnosis. Albertson’s pain did not improve with medication

or other treatment, including an extended course of opiate painkillers, two occipital

nerve blocks, and a radiofrequency ablation.

In January 2010, Albertson sought treatment at the Mayo Clinic. There, he

was diagnosed with New Persistent Daily Headache (“NPDH”), a new headache

1 While that appeal was pending, Albertson applied for disability benefits a second time, for the period beginning the day after the first ALJ’s adverse decision. Relying on nearly the same record as in the first proceedings, the second ALJ found Albertson disabled and awarded benefits. We issued a limited remand of the pending appeal, allowing the district…