Amendments to 296.34

1. Rosa v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

   Civil No. 18-1506 (BJM) (D.P.R. Jul. 16, 2019)

   In his diagnostic report, Dr. Flores categorized Sanchez with the code "296.34" but did not define the code or explain what it means. See Tr. 116 ("Diagnostic Impression"). The ALJ pointed out that Dr. Flores diagnosed Sanchez with "severe recurrent major depressive disorder with psychotic features" four times: "Ex. B4F at 1, 9, 11, and 14." Tr. 49; See Tr. 108, 116, 118, 121. The only consistent code in the diagnostic reports for these visits is "296.34," and, in fact, it is the only code mentioned for the last instance. See Tr. 121. Careful reading of the ALJ's report indicates that she defined "296.34" as "severe recurrent major depressive disorder with psychotic features." While the ALJ only mentions four instances of this code occurring, it actually occurs in eleven of the seventeen visits between February 2012 and March 2014. Tr. 108, 110-18, 121. The diagnosis also occurs in every one of Sanchez's last seven visits with Dr. Flores, which occurred between March 2014 and March 2016. Tr. 127-30, 133-34, 138.

   PAGE 6
2. Cordeiro v. Saul

   Civil Action No. 18-10203-PBS (D. Mass. Dec. 20, 2019)

   The Commissioner also argues that the Court erred by finding the ALJ did not properly weigh the opinions of Dr. Wold and Dr. Boshes. To be clear, the Court only found that the ALJ's decision not to give Dr. Wold's opinion controlling weight was not supported by substantial evidence. First, the Commissioner argues that Dr. Wold's opinion is not a "medical opinion" within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The Court disagrees. According to the regulations, "[m]edical opinions are statements . . . that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions." Id. § 404.1527(a)(1) (emphasis added). Dr. Wold's notes describe Cordeiro's symptoms and diagnose her with "Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe With Psychotic Features." See Am. Psychiatric Ass'n, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev. 2000) code 296.34 (DSM-IVTR). Second, the Commissioner argues that the ALJ was entitled to give Dr. Wold's opinion little weight because Cordeiro reported to him and John McMullen, a social…

   PAGE 7
3. United States v. Carter

   Case Number: 3:05-00089-01 (M.D. Tenn. Jun. 22, 2012)

   Mr. Carter was referred to Centerstone for a substance abuse evaluation. The evaluation was conducted on December 21, 2011. The defendant was diagnosed as suffering from: 296.34 MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, RECURRENT, SEVERE WITH PSYCHOTIC FEATURES; 303.90 ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE; and 304.29 COCAINE DEPENDENCE. It was recommended the defendant receive weekly therapy, a psychiatric evaluation, and follow-up medication management appointments.

   PAGE 4
4. Scolley v. Colvin

   Case No. 12-510 8-CV-SW-REL-SSA (W.D. Mo. Jan. 9, 2014)

   • Motion for summary judgment

   Axis I R/O [rule out] psychotic depression 296.34 polysubstance abuse

   PAGE 18
5. Gonzalez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

   16-CV-4612 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2017)   Cited 3 times

   13. For this reason, although the ALJ discounted the Olivier MSS for the wrong reason, he was clearly right to discount it. Many if not most of the findings in it are not only unsupported by the record, but are flatly contradicted by it. For example, Dr. Olivier noted that plaintiff had suicidal ideation, but every treatment note, including Dr. Rodriguez's treatment notes, states "no" next to that field. Dr. Olivier's primary diagnoses on the MSS from the DSM- IV was 296.34, which is a "severe" major depressive disorder "with psychotic features," and 309.81, which is "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," but every primary diagnosis in her and Dr. Rodriguez's treatment notes was 296.32, which is "moderate" major depressive disorder without any psychotic features. In addition, although every treatment note has multiple diagnoses, none mentions PTSD. In fact, despite the "psychotic features" diagnosis on the Olivier MSS, there is absolutely nothing in the treatment notes that suggests anything near psychosis or a psychotic episode.

   PAGE 6
6. Moore v. Saul

   Case No. CIV-18-634-G (W.D. Okla. Sep. 23, 2019)

   1 more...

   In his MSS, Mr. Shaleen opined that he "believe[d] that in the past [Plaintiff] has met the DSM-IV-TR criteria for 296.34 Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe with Mood-Incongruent Psychotic Features, and currently meets the criteria for 296.33 Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe Without Psychotic Features." R. 242 (emphasis omitted). Mr. Shaleen then opined in his 2013 Psychiatric Review Technique form that Plaintiff's condition meets the criteria of listing 12.04 for Affective Disorders and that Plaintiff has mild restrictions in activities of daily living, marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning, and marked difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace. R. 255, 265.

   PAGE 5
7. Moore v. Colvin

   Case No. CIV-15-283-STE (W.D. Okla. May. 26, 2016)

   I believe that in the past Brad has met the DSM-IV-TR criteria for 296.34 Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe, with Mood-Incongruent Psychotic Features, and currently meets the DSM-IV-TR criteria for 296.33 Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe Without Psychotic Features (Without only because the coding criteria do not allow for occasional paranoid and delusional processes and these are not a constant feature of his experience). Brad's symptoms and functional impairment are well in excess of those required to make the diagnosis, and interfere consistently with occupational functioning and usual social activities and relationships with others.

   PAGE 8
8. Olmeda v. Astrue

   16 F. Supp. 3d 23 (D.P.R. 2014)   Cited 6 times

   On August 16, 2011, plaintiff was evaluated by the consulting examining psychiatrist Dr. Juan G. Batista. The doctor found plaintiff anxious and depressed. Immediate, recent and remote memory were adequate. Short-term memory was not. The doctor found adequate judgment, diminished attention, ability to conduct simple calculations and of average intelligence. The diagnosis was “AXIS I: 296.34”, which in the DSM–IV–TR is severe major depression with psychotic features. Also diagnosed was post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). (Tr. at 655–58). Dr. Zaida Boria, the consulting neurologist, evaluated plaintiff on September 14, 2011. She found plaintiff to be alert, and fully oriented. He was coherent and relevant. A diagnosis of chronic lumbar musculoskeletal pain was made, with restrictions of range of movement. She noted that plaintiff could sit, stand, walk and travel, as well as handle and lift common objects. (Tr. at 662–70). There were no strength limitations of the lower extremities and no hand limitations. Plaintiff was 6'5? tall and weighed 217 at the time. Gait was normal.

   PAGE 29
9. Cordeiro v. Saul

   391 F. Supp. 3d 170 (D. Mass. 2019)   Cited 1 times

   On August 8, 2000, at age 40, Plaintiff sought mental health treatment at Child and Family Services of Fall River ("CFS") following a severe depressive incident that she called a "nervous breakdown." Soon after, Dr. Marshall Wold, a psychiatrist who saw her four times, diagnosed her with "Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe With Psychotic Features." See Am. Psychiatric Ass'n, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev. 2000) code 296.34 (DSM-IV-TR). Dr. Wold prescribed her Zoloft, which improved but did not eliminate her symptoms. Plaintiff also saw John McMullen, a licensed independent clinical social worker at CFS. He noted slight improvements in her symptoms, some of which were followed by recurrences. Mr. McMullen also continuously noted that she felt unable to return to work. Plaintiff was forced to stop treatment at CFS at the end of 2000 due to a lack of insurance. On February 4, 2002, CFS formally terminated its relationship with Plaintiff. In that document, CFS noted that her GAF had improved as a result of treatment.

   PAGE 173
10. Smith v. Astrue

    No. ED CV 08-1131-PLA (C.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2009)   Cited 2 times

    The current official diagnostic coding system in the United States is the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification ("ICD-9-CM"). See DSM-IV at 1. Diagnoses and procedures in the United States are assigned numerical codes, which are listed in the ICD-9-CM. See id. Plaintiff was assessed by Dr. Diamreyan with DSM-IV diagnosis code "296.34," which is the diagnosis code for major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe with psychotic features. [AR at 255-56.] DSM-IV at 369-71, 376, 411-13.

    PAGE 7