Skip to content

Credibility of Social Security Disability Plaintiff that ‘cannot stand psychiatrists … zombifies me’

August 4, 2012

August 2, 2012 by Order of US Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security in the case of Raymond E. Otto was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The Administrative Law Judge must reassess Otto’s credibility; particularly as regards Otto’s claim that he does not seek psychiatric care because it “zombifies”.

RAYMOND E. OTTO, Plaintiff,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Case No. EDCV 11-1925-JEM
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108435

Decided August 2, 2012 by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott:

the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s credibility because “[d]espite being aware of his mental issues, he chooses to avoid psychiatric treatment and the use of psychiatric medication.” (AR 39.) An ALJ may properly discount a claimant’s credibility where there is “an unexplained, or inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment or follow a prescribed course of treatment.” Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, however, Plaintiff did explain his failure to seek treatment. He testified that he does not receive any mental treatment “by choice”: “. . . I cannot stand psychiatrists. All they want to do is put pills down my throat which either zombifies me, makes me want to sleep all day or it wires me up.” (AR 618.) He added that he never thought any mental health professionals were doing him any good. (AR 627-28.) Moreover, “it is a questionable practice to chastise one with a mental impairment for the exercise of poor judgment in seeking rehabilitation.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotation mark and citation omitted). Thus, Plaintiff’s failure to seek treatment for his mental illness does not clearly and convincingly detract from his credibility.

Remand is warranted for the ALJ to reassess Plaintiff’s credibility.

The background section of Judge McDermott’s Order explains:

In January 1992, Plaintiff [Raymond E. Otto] was deemed disabled since February 1, 1988, due to schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder.

I think this is a good decision. I really like the implication of choice as regards becoming a medicated zombie and am happy to see this court find plausible credibility in Otto’s explanation.

There are many more ZombieLaw Social Security Cases but “zombifies” is actually a first; although we already had two “zombified”. But still, way to go Judge McDermott – a good decision and a vocabulary first for the courts.

zombie magistrate judge john mcdermott

Presumably, Mr. Otto’s attorney, William M. Kuntz, also deserves credit for both the outcome and the inclusion of “zombify” in Plaintiff’s briefs.
zombie william kuntz

  1. This is in America, right?
    Do you HAVE to have drug treatment or any other treatment you might like, just to claim social security benefits? That’s barbaric!

    • Yes this is America. I don’t really know what the requirements are but I think what happened here (and in the next post) is that credibility was questioned because of non-cooperation with medical advised treatment. It seems like that would be a sticky issue. How can we know if they are refusing medications because they don’t like psychiatry or because they are not faking the disability?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Another zombie credibility Social Security case – but different result « zombielaw
  2. pro se Social Security Zombie fails to persuade Maryland District Court « zombielaw

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: