S.D. v. Kijakazi

Background

S.D. applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging disability beginning April 22, 2017. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a June 13, 2022 hearing at which S.D. and a vocational expert testified, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that S.D. was not disabled.

The ALJ found that S.D. had several severe impairments but that they did not meet or equal the listed impairments. The ALJ determined that S.D. could perform light work with some restrictions, including occasional postural activities and no regular interaction and communication with the general public as primary job duties. The ALJ found that S.D. could not perform her past relevant work but that jobs matching her residual functional capacity existed in significant numbers.

S.D. challenged the ALJ’s treatment of medical opinions and her testimony about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. She relied on opinions from Dr. Radabaugh, Dr. Regets, and Dr. Brown.

Medical Opinion Evidence

The court held that the ALJ did not provide an explanation supported by substantial evidence for rejecting the opinion evidence from Dr. Radabaugh and Dr. Regets.

Dr. Radabaugh opined that S.D.’s functioning in several areas was fair to poor. The ALJ found that opinion not persuasive, reasoning that it appeared to be based on S.D.’s statements and that the level of dysfunction she described was not documented throughout the relevant period. The court found that the ALJ did not identify specific parts of the opinion that appeared to rely on S.D.’s statements, give specific and detailed reasons for that conclusion, or identify inconsistencies between the assumed history, treatment, or current functioning and the medical records. The court also did not find substantial evidence supporting those conclusions.

The ALJ referred to a quality review that had found Dr. Regets’ state-agency assessment insufficient. But the ALJ did not discuss the details or methodology of that review, and the quality-review assessment was not part of the record. The court held that this reference did not provide a basis supported by substantial evidence for evaluating Dr. Regets’ opinion.

The ALJ found Dr. Brown’s opinion partially persuasive but concluded that the record did not support some limitations concerning interactions with coworkers or supervisors and the ability to perform simple, repetitive tasks. The court noted that the ALJ thoroughly evaluated the evidence relevant to those conclusions. The court’s stated finding of error concerned the rejection of the opinions from Dr. Radabaugh and Dr. Regets.

Symptom Testimony

The court rejected S.D.’s challenge to the ALJ’s evaluation of her symptom testimony. The ALJ found that S.D.’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, but that her statements about their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence.

The court found that the ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons for that consistency determination. The ALJ identified inconsistencies involving S.D.’s reports of depression, manic episodes, medication failure, poor sleep, motivation, and energy. The ALJ also considered normal findings at some medical appointments, S.D.’s reports that her mood improved after obtaining a more private apartment, the effect of seasonal and living circumstances on her motivation, documented marijuana use through 2018, and improvement after stressful living conditions were eliminated.

Disposition

The court reversed the ALJ’s decision in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the order. The court instructed that, on remand, the ALJ should consider whether S.D. was disabled during any 12-month period after the alleged onset date, particularly before her symptoms improved. The opinion did not award benefits or direct a finding that S.D. was disabled.