Serrano v. Colvin – ED Pa. – December 9,
2015
The court upheld that magistrate’s conclusion that the ALJ’s failure to cite to Serrano’s GAF scores
warranted remand.
GAF scores assess an individual’s “psychological, social,
and occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum of mental
health-illness.” Boston v. Chater, No. CIV.A. 94-5781,
1995 WL 708552, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 1995) (quoting Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual ofMental Disorders 32 (4th ed. 1994)). “The GAF
scale, designed by the American Psychiatric
Association, ranges from 1 to 100, with a score of 1 being
the lowest and 100 being the highest.” Christian v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No.
CIV.A. 13-584, 2014 WL 4925032, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2014) (quoting West
v. Astrue, 2010 WL 1659712, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2010)). Thougha GAF
score alone does not necessarily indicate an impairment, it constitutes
“relevant medicalevidence that ‘must be addressed by an ALJ in making a
determination regarding a claimant’s disability.’” Packard v. Astrue, No.
CIV.A. 11-7323, 2012 WL 4717890, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2012) (quoting Colon
v. Barnhart, 424 F. Supp.2d 805, 812 (E.D. Pa. 2006)).
At step four in the disability analysis, an ALJ determines
whether a claimant has the requisite residual functional capacity to perform
her past relevant work. In making this decision,
the ALJ must consider all evidence before her and indicate
why she accepts or rejects certain evidence. Adorno v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 43, 48
(3d Cir. 1994). Given this requirement, an
argument in favor of remand based on a failure to discuss
GAF scores “will fail if, either: (1) the doctors who issued the GAF scores did
not “express any opinions regarding [her] specific limitations,” or (2) if the
ALJ provided a clear and satisfactory explanation of the basis uponwhich he
dismissed the probative weight of the omitted GAF scores. Packard, No. CIV. A.
11-7323, 2012 WL 4717890 at *3.
In her Report, the magistrate judge reviewed the record and
concluded that claimant “was assigned a GAF score of 45 on twenty-one separate
treatment visits over a period of nearly
two years.” ....The ALJ made reference to only one of the at
least twenty-one GAF scores—a GAF score of 50 provided by the agency examiner. She provided no explanation for her decision
to ignore the others. The magistrate judge reasoned that, “[t]hough
remand may not be necessary where an ALJ fails to discuss one or two GAF scores
of 50 or below, the Court finds that there is clear basis for remand where an
ALJ ignores twenty-one such scores.”
-------------------------
If the case is old, the link
may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case name, court,
and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google
Scholar)
