Only in last 20 years have the US Federal Courts taken a hard look at fibromyalgia and recognized it as a "disease" for purposes of social security disability. In past times fibromyalgia was usually called, for nothing better available, as chronic fatigue syndrome. Fibromyalgia is difficult to diagnose and treat. The disease commonly results in general overwhelming fatigue, chronic pain, headaches and an inability to do routine daily activities and work.  However it is common for sufferers to continue to do routine tasks such as shopping and doing housework. 

 

This was the situation posed by a recent client, a young educated woman,  who claimed she was disabled due to her fibromyalgia and entitled to social security disability benefits.  After presenting her claim to the social security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the ALJ agreed that she has fibromyalgia but denied that she was disabled due to the disease. 

 

The ALJ's reason to deny benefits was that the claimant's complaints about her fibromyalgia were "subjective" and the medical evidence provided little "objective" evidence of fibromyalgia.

 

We proceeded to appeal this ALJ's decision to federal court.

 

On appeal we argued that the ALJ's reasoning that the claimant's "subjective" evidence of her fibromyalgia, rather than "objective" was a fundamental error.    

 

In fact we pointed out that the US Federal Courts themselves have found that fibromyalgia is an "elusive and mysterious disease" in which the medical "examinations are normal in fibromyalgia patients".

 

We argued that in fact there simply are no objective medical tests currently available that reveal and prove the presence of fibromyalgia.

 

As such, we argued, the ALJ's reason to deny benefits for fibromyalgia due to a lack of "objective" medical evidence was wrong.  In fact we argued that the patient's "subjective" complaints of problems and history are the "essential diagnostic tool" in fibromyalgia cases.

 

Thus, we argued, that when the ALJ recognized that the claimant had fibromyalgia, his additional demands that the claimant prove her disease by "objective" medical evidence, rather than recognizing her own subjective complaints, flew in the face of known medical research.  We argued, the ALJ was wrongfully making the claimant provide and prove  additional "objective" medical evidence of her fibromyalgia over and above that which was necessary under established medical guidelines.

 

The US Federal Court on appeal wholly agreed with our arguments.

 

The Federal Court Magistrate reported that since the ALJ already recognized that the claimant had fibromyalgia, the ALJ was then required to consider fibromyalgia as an impairment on the claimant's ability to function.  

 

When the ALJ proceeded to deny benefits because the claimant did not provide "objective" medical evidence of fibromyalgia, the US Federal Court Magistrate fully agreed with our arguments to the contrary.    The Federal Court found that it was "erroneous for the ALJ to require objective evidence in support of a diagnosis of fibromyalgia." 

 

The Federal Court fully agreed with our arguments that in fact "[w]hat makes fibromyalgia difficult to analyze in the social security disability context is the lack of objective symptoms." 

 

The ALJ's requirement that the claimant prove her disabling condition of fibromyalgia by "objective" medical evidence beyond established medical guidelines was error.  Since fibromyalgia is essentially a "subjective" disease, "the lack of objective evidence is not valid grounds" upon which this ALJ could reject the claimant's diagnosis and opinions of her medical doctors.

 

As such, the ALJ's decision regarding the claimant's ability to work due to fibromyalgia was "legally flawed and not supported by substantial evidence".

 

The ALJ's decision to deny benefits was recommended to be reversed and that this client's claim be immediately remanded back to the SSA for another hearing.