Jeramy M. M. v. Kijakazi

Background

Jeramy M. M. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The administrative law judge found that he was not disabled. The judge determined that Jeramy had severe impairments including left shoulder osteoarthritis after reconstruction, asthma, a cognitive disorder, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. The judge assigned him a residual functional capacity for a limited range of light work and relied on vocational-expert testimony that he could perform jobs such as mail sorter, linen folder, and night cleaner.

After the Social Security Appeals Council denied review, Jeramy sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). He moved for summary judgment seeking reversal of the Commissioner’s decision. The Commissioner cross-moved to affirm.

Issue and standard of review

The issue was whether the administrative law judge erred in weighing the medical evidence, particularly the opinions of psychologist Tania Shertock. The court could set aside the Commissioner’s decision if it was based on legal error or was not supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence that could lead a reasonable person to accept the conclusion.

Under the regulations applicable to Jeramy’s application, the Social Security Administration does not give automatic or controlling weight to a treating or examining medical source. Instead, it evaluates the persuasiveness of medical opinions, with supportability and consistency being the two most important factors. An administrative law judge who rejects an examining doctor’s opinion as unsupported or inconsistent must explain that decision with substantial evidence.

Analysis

Shertock examined Jeramy in January 2022. She concluded that he could understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions, but had moderate, marked, and extreme limitations in several areas involving complex instructions, concentration, persistence, pace, stress, adaptation, completing a normal workday or workweek, workplace interactions, and responding to usual work situations. Her handwritten explanations referred to difficulty concentrating, extreme interpersonal problems related to anger and depression, and periods when his symptoms worsened and interfered with daily activities, relationships, persistence, concentration, and pace.

The administrative law judge found Shertock’s opinions only partially persuasive, reasoning that the marked and extreme limitations were inconsistent with treatment records showing mostly normal mental-status examinations and with reported informal work in landscaping, plumbing, and electrical work.

The court held that the cited treatment records were not substantial evidence supporting that conclusion. Some records described Jeramy as alert with normal behavior, but other records documented decreased concentration, sleep disturbance, hyperactivity, depression, suicidal thoughts, mood swings, medication changes, and a March 2021 suicide attempt. The court also noted evidence that Jeramy’s wife managed his medication after that attempt and that he missed appointments because he could not remember them.

The court further found that the administrative law judge improperly focused on records from 2020 and 2021 while failing to consider records dating back to the alleged onset of disability in 2006. Those earlier records described psychiatric hospitalizations, self-harm, violent outbursts, repeated suicide attempts, emotional decompensation, difficulty sustaining attention and concentration, problems accepting instructions and interacting with others, poor attendance, and difficulty completing a normal workday or workweek. The court concluded that the record as a whole reflected cycles of improvement and debilitating symptoms rather than a basis for treating the more stable period as proof that Jeramy could work.

The court also found that the administrative law judge made an unsupported assumption about the amount of work represented by Jeramy’s report of informal landscaping, plumbing, and electrical work. The record did not explain how often or how extensively he performed that work. Jeramy testified that another job involved only a few hours per month and less than $50 per month, which the court found could be consistent with Shertock’s opinion that he had a marked limitation in completing a normal workday or workweek. Other records described work-program terminations related to defiant, oppositional, or inappropriate behavior, which the court found consistent with Shertock’s opinions about workplace interactions.

The Commissioner also argued that Shertock’s opinion was inadequately supported, but the administrative law judge had not relied on supportability. The court therefore did not consider that additional argument and reviewed the reasons actually given in the administrative decision.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge erred in finding Shertock’s opinion only partially persuasive. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted, the Commissioner’s cross-motion was denied, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.