Eighth Circuit Remand: Littrell v. O'Malley Breakdown

Before diving into the details, a quick shout-out to Jennifer Van Fossan and Dennis Fox for their excellent work on Littrell v. O'Malley, issued on October 4, 2024. This case brought an interesting split in the Eighth Circuit — complete with a dissenting opinion!

Background of the Case

Littrell appealed the denial of her Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Her main argument? The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) didn’t properly consider her chronic back and knee pain.

The ALJ discounted her pain complaints, saying there wasn’t enough objective medical evidence to back them up. Littrell disagreed, arguing that her pain was real and had been unfairly minimized.

What Did the Court Decide?

The Eighth Circuit ruled in Littrell’s favor, finding that the ALJ mishandled her subjective pain complaints.

Key Points from the Majority Opinion

• The ALJ placed too much emphasis on objective evidence and didn’t fully evaluate the subjective nature of pain.

• According to Halverson v. Astrue, objective evidence cannot be the sole factor when assessing pain.

• The failure to consider all factors led to errors in:

  • Determining Littrell’s Residual Functional Capacity (RFC).

  • Questioning the vocational expert (VE) about her ability to work.

• As a result, the case was remanded for a more thorough review.

  
  

The Dissent: Judge Stras’ Perspective

Judge Stras took a much simpler view of the case — literally. His entire dissent read:

“I would have affirmed the judgment.”

That’s it. No detailed reasoning. But it leaves room to infer his likely rationale.

What He Might Have Argued

• The ALJ had enough evidence to justify the denial, even if not perfect.

• Courts should defer to administrative findings unless there’s a clear legal error.

• Excessive judicial second-guessing could undermine the ALJ’s role in weighing credibility and medical opinions.

  
  

The Core Debate: How Should Subjective Pain Be Weighed?

This case brings to light a recurring tension in disability law.

The Majority’s View

• Subjective pain deserves careful, independent consideration.

• Limiting pain evaluation to medical evidence can unfairly penalize claimants with conditions not easily measured by scans or tests.

  
  

Judge Stras’ View

• Administrative findings should be respected if reasonable.

• Overturning them too readily could set a precedent for courts to intervene more often than necessary.

  
  

Implications for Disability Law

This decision affects more than just Littrell — it highlights key takeaways for attorneys, judges, and claimants:

• RFC Analysis: If the ALJ doesn’t properly weigh pain, the entire RFC determination can be flawed.

• Vocational Expert Testimony: Errors in pain evaluation ripple into VE questioning and conclusions.

• Legal Strategy: Attorneys must ensure that subjective pain is thoroughly documented and supported by consistent testimony and medical records.

  
  

Q&A: Common Reader Questions

Q: What does it mean when a case is “remanded”?

A: It means the appellate court sends the case back to the lower court or agency for further review or a new decision, usually because of legal or procedural errors.

Q: Why does subjective pain matter so much in disability cases?

A: Many disabilities involve pain that doesn’t always show up in medical imaging. Courts recognize that a fair evaluation must consider how pain affects daily functioning — not just what tests reveal.

Q: How can claimants strengthen pain-related claims?

A: By maintaining consistent medical treatment, detailed symptom records, and credible testimony about how pain impacts daily activities.

Final Thoughts

Littrell v. O'Malley reminds us that disability law balances human experience with medical evidence. The Eighth Circuit’s decision reinforces the need for careful evaluation of subjective pain, while Judge Stras’ dissent underscores the importance of respecting administrative findings.

Ultimately, this case emphasizes one key takeaway:

Pain is real, even when it can’t be measured. And the law must recognize that.

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.