Opinion Made on Obesity vs. Social Security Administration - REVISED

Andrea Puksta
COM365
Civil Court Case

Opinion Made on Obesity vs. Social Security Administration

PHILADELPHIA, PA – The Third Circuit Court of Appeals on January 24 ruled that Arthur Poulus, 28, of New Jersey, is not entitled at this time to benefits from The Social Security Administration.

Given the evidence, the three judge panel made up of, D. Michael Fisher, Julio Fuentes and Monroe McKay, sent the case back to the New Jersey federal court for further proceedings.

In February 2000, Poulus, then 19 years old, applied for child’s insurance benefits and supplemental security income payments. Poulos filed based on an alleged disability from birth of morbid obesity with knee pain, back strain, shortness of breath, slowed movement and neurological impairment. Polous sought the benefits because he believed that due to his impairments, he was unable to hold a steady job. Upon receiving the application, the Social Security Administration (SSA) denied Poulos the benefits and income. Polous then requested the SSA reconsider its decision.

According to court documents, The SSA has a five-step process to determine whether an applicant is entitled to benefits. First, Polous would have to show that he was not engaged in any productive activity since he became disabled. Second, the SSA Commissioner would have to determine if Polous’ impairments were severe, which would then have to meet the criteria on the Administrations impairment list. The impairment list, according to the SSA “describes, for each major body system, impairments that are considered severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity.” Even if there is a severe impairment, the SSA Commissioner would have to decide if Polous has the capacity to work.

After an initial hearing, an Administrative Law Judge, concluded that Polous had never been disabled at any time and denied the request for any review of the SSA’s decision. The District Court of New Jersey ruled in favor with the SSA. Immediately after, Polous appealed the decision.

Court records show that Polous has been obese all his life. At the age of five, he weighed 140.5 pounds and steadily grew to weigh 500 pounds at the time he applied for the benefits. At 5’6” and 500 pounds, Polous is considered by the medical community as being extremely obese and at a high risk for developing weight-related problems.
During his initial hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Polous testified that his weight and other health problems caused him to move slower that other people and that he has difficulty walking and standing for long periods of times. When Polous stands for longer than 10 minutes, his knee “starts to really hurt and cramp with sharp pain.” After more than an hour standing, Polous says that his ankles become swollen and will stay that way for at least two days.

Polous is also afflicted with not being able to sleep because he has a hard time breathing and has to wake up often to catch his breath. Polous says that not being able to sleep causes him to feel tired during the day. Polous also testified during the initial hearing that he does not have any problem with sitting, although he sometimes gets small pains if he sits for an extended period of time and sometimes can become out of breath.

A state agency physician examined Polous in September 2000 and concluded that he was morbidly obese with high blood pressure and meniscal degeneration, or pain due to worn out cartilage in the knee. The examination was reviewed by a secondary physician who concluded, according to court documents, that Polous could lift between ten and twenty pounds occasionally, stand, walk or sit for six hours in an eight hour workday.

Polous testifies that he has a hard time keeping a job and has never been employed for longer than a few months, because he is too slow. Polous states that he also stopped working because his back and legs hurt and he was “physically unable to do the work required.”

Polous’ attorney, Thomas H. Klein did not return calls seeking comment.

Polous has appealed because he believes that during his initial hearing, the ALJ failed to take into consideration all of his impairments and made a mistake by not granting him the benefits he sought.

Court documents show that the panel of judges agreed that “the lack of supporting evidence highlights why we require the claimant [Polous] with an opportunity to see the evidence on which the ALJ relies and with an opportunity to challenge the ALJ’s decision.”