S.W. v. O'Malley

Background

S.W. sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying her claim for disability benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. She alleged disability beginning July 1, 2006. After an administrative hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that S.W. had several severe impairments, including lumbar degenerative disc disease, hypothyroidism, obesity, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and polysubstance abuse disorder.

The ALJ found that S.W. could perform medium work with restrictions, including low-stress, simple, routine tasks; limited interaction with the public and coworkers; no fast-paced work; no responsibility for others' safety; and limited exposure to pulmonary irritants. The ALJ also found that S.W. would be absent more than once per month. At the final step of the disability analysis, the ALJ found that significant numbers of jobs existed in the national economy that S.W. could perform and concluded that she was not disabled.

The parties agreed that remand was appropriate. They disagreed about the remedy: S.W. sought remand for payment of benefits, while the Commissioner supported remand for further administrative proceedings.

Reasons for Remand

Step-three findings

At step three, the ALJ must evaluate whether the claimant's impairments meet or equal a listed impairment and must explain the evaluation of the relevant evidence and the combined effects of the impairments. The ALJ found moderate limitations in four areas of mental functioning. But Laura Jean Catlin, Psy.D., whose report the ALJ considered, found marked limitations in several related areas, including interacting with the public, responding to supervisors, maintaining attention for a two-hour period, maintaining pace and persistence on complex or detailed tasks, and meeting basic standards of neatness and cleanliness.

The court held that the discrepancy between the ALJ's findings and Dr. Catlin's report meant that the ALJ's step-three determination did not appear to be supported by substantial evidence.

S.W.'s symptom testimony

The ALJ found that S.W.'s medically determinable impairments could reasonably cause her symptoms but stated that her testimony about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms was not entirely consistent with the record. The court held that this was an insufficient boilerplate explanation. The ALJ was required to identify which testimony was rejected and the facts supporting that decision.

Medical opinions

The court found several problems with the ALJ's evaluation of medical opinions. The ALJ did not properly address the required factors of supportability and consistency when evaluating the opinion of treating physician Tiffany Arnold, M.D. The Commissioner conceded that the evaluation did not comply with the governing regulations.

The ALJ also discounted Dr. Catlin's report without adequately addressing supportability and consistency. The court noted that the report was based on a clinical interview, mental-status examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Beck Depression Inventory, and Burns PTSD Inventory. The court further found that the ALJ's statement that Dr. Catlin did not consider S.W.'s drug use was not fully accurate because the report mentioned S.W.'s marijuana use.

The ALJ also failed to discuss supportability and consistency when evaluating the opinions of Sergiv Barsukov, Psy.D., and Karen Ying, M.D., who had not examined S.W. Finally, the ALJ relied on Farah Rana, M.D.'s May 2021 opinion without addressing later treatment records showing blood clots in S.W.'s right leg and lungs and acute deep-vein thrombosis in her right leg.

Residual functional capacity

A claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC) describes the work-related activities the claimant can still perform despite impairments. The court found that substantial evidence did not support the RFC or the step-five decision. The ALJ's finding that S.W. would be absent more than once per month conflicted with vocational-expert testimony that consistent absences of more than one day per month would make sustaining employment problematic and that more than one absence per month would eliminate the identified jobs.

The court also directed the ALJ on remand to resolve conflicts in the medical testimony and ambiguities in the record.

Disposition

Judge Beeler remanded the case for further administrative proceedings rather than ordering immediate payment of benefits. The court concluded that additional proceedings would be useful to resolve the conflicts and ambiguities and ensure that the essential factual issues were decided. The order did not award benefits.