Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559 (July 11, 2006)(4th Cir. 2006). Sickle Cell Disease. The district court properly reversed the ALJ’s ruling and awarded disability benefits to Mr. Hines. The ALJ applied an improper legal standard to discredit the treating physician’s opinion and refused to credit unrebutted testimony that plaintiff could not work an eight hour day. Finally, the ALJ relied upon expert testimony that lacked a factual foundation. Because the record establishes Hines’ entitlement to benefits, we will award benefits without remand. See Crider, 624 F.2d at 17.
1. Applicant was entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove that his pain was was so continuous and severe that it prevented him from working an eight hour day;

2. Applicant did not have capacity to function at any residual functional capacity that required working an eight hour day or its equivalent;

3. Opinion of vocational expert was not relevant.