or lung cancer — directly caused by smoking— who continue to smoke, not because they do not suffer gravely from the disease, but bécause other factors such as the addictive nature of the product impacts their ability to stop'. This is an unreliable basis on which to rest a credibility determination. Shramek, 226 F.3d at 813. In applying these rules set forth in Shramek, the court in Seals stated that even assuming the doctor’s statements did constitute a prescribed course of treatment, “the [claimant]’s failure to stop smoking does not necessarily constitute a refusal to follow that prescribed treatment. A willful refusal to follow treatment may not be assumed-from a mere failure to accomplish the recommended change.” Seals, 308 F.Supp.2d at 1250 (citing McCall, 846 F.2d at 1319) (<HOLDING>). The court found evidence in the record that
holding that an unexplained failure to follow a prescribed treatment is a specific reason to discount credibility holding that claimants repeated failure to follow the employers specific directions amounts to misconduct connected with work holding that a claimants failure to lose weight does not constitute a refusal to follow the treatment holding that failure to follow mandatory provision of statute renders the act void whereas failure to follow directory provision does not holding that alj committed reversible error in failing to consider whether a claimants failure to seek treatment was due to his financial circumstances