The United States District Court has remanded this case back to the Commissioner of Social Security...The Appeals Council hereby vacates the final decision of (Judge Riley Atkins) for further proceedings consistent with the order of the US District Court.

Riley Atkins did not provide adequate rationale for giving "little weight" to treating source opinion evidence.  Atkins gave "little weight" to the opinion provided by Richard Craft Jr MD, a treating physician, because Dr. Craft's assessment was "not supported by objective  evidence, relied solely on claimant's subjective complaints, and was inconsistent with the claimant's activities of living and conservative treatment history." 

Riley Atkins also stated that the claimant's symptoms improved with treatment.  However, Riley Atkins did not provide a discussion of what opinion evidence was inconsistent with Dr. Craft's opinion, it Atkins did not explain how the claimant's sporadic activities of daily living were inconsistent with Dr. Craft's opinion.  Further a statement by Riley Atkins that Dr. Craft relied solely on the claimant's subjective complaints also appears inconsistent with the record.  (e.g. the record DOESN'T SAY THAT and you appear to have made that up, RILEY ATKINS)

The reasons provided by Riley Atkins for rejecting claimant's subjective complaints do not appear to be sufficient.  Atkins states that claimant's testimony was found to be inconsistent with the record, in part, because she testified she had been prescribed a wheelchair in order to assist her with mobility but in August 2007, the claimant's treating physician reported that she did not need an assistive devise, stated Riley Atkins "these facts weaken the claimant's credibility.  However, the record shows that even though Dr. Craft stated that the claimant did not need the use of a cane or assistive devise to engage in occasional standing/walking, he also wrote a wheelchair/scooter prescription indicating a lifetime of use and in addition, treatment notes from Dr. Craft indicate a need for the wheel-chair. The ambiguity in the record should have been resolved by contacting the claimant's treating physician for clarification and not counted against the claimant's credibility, because factually both the rationale provided by Riley Atkins and the indication from the claimant that she was prescribed a wheelchair/scooter, both appear to be true based on the cumulative record.

Riley Atkins does not show adequate consideration of the lay information in the record.  The record shows that the claimant's husband, provided information concerning his observations of the claimant, indicating that claimant had a reduced ability to complete household chores, she needed to lie down frequently, she has an inability to handle stress, trouble concentration, cannot lift objects or walk long distances, or sit for long periods of time.  Further, the claimant's sister, friend and massage therapist also submitted written statements corroborating these limitations.  the lay information in the record was discounted by Riley Atkins because, "these parties have a personal relationship with the claimant and lack the expertise and possibly the motivation to offer an objective or functional assessment, their statements regarding the claimant's symptoms and limitations are considered with caution>'  However, Riley Atkin's rationale does not provide adequate reasoning for rejecting the information from lay sources because a relationship with a claimant does not solely infer any lack of motivation to be truthful and lay sources are not required to present an objective or functional assessment of the claimant.  Social Security Ruling 06-03p states that "in addition to medical sources" we may use evidence from "other sources" (such as) spouses, parents, siblings, friends..."to provide insight into the severity of the impairments and now it affects the individuals' ability to function." Riley Atkins, it is inconsistent (and not logical) to discount lay source information solely on the the fact that a claimant has a personal relationship with a lay source, WHEN AT THE SAME TIME the regulation specifically DIRECTS THAT ADJUDICATORS SHOULD CONSIDER LAY INFORMATION FROM SOURCES WHO HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A CLAIMANT, such as a spouse and family member.

As this case was previously remanded to Riley Atkins before, the Appeals Council directs that upon remand, this case WILL BE ASSIGNED TO A DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.

(layman's translation;  Judge Atkins, you did a half assed job.

Judge Name	Decisions	Total  Dispositions	Fully  Favorable	Partially  Favorable	Approval  Rate	Unfavorable	Denial  Rate	Year
ATKINS,  RILEY J	506	572	337	16	62%	153	27%	2005
ATKINS,  RILEY J	490	567	338	15	62%	137	24%	2006
ATKINS,  RILEY J	429	502	280	16	59%	133	26%	2007
ATKINS,  RILEY J	348	393	176	19	50%	153	39%	2008