Wyatt A. v. O'Malley

Background

Wyatt A. applied for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning March 19, 2021. After a hearing at which Wyatt A. testified with counsel and a vocational expert also testified, the administrative law judge found that Wyatt A. had severe anxiety disorder, depression, and bipolar disorder. The administrative law judge found moderate limitations in interacting with others and in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace, along with mild limitations in understanding, remembering, or applying information and in adapting or managing himself.

The administrative law judge found that Wyatt A. retained the residual functional capacity to perform work at all exertional levels, with no interaction with the general public or coworkers and only occasional interaction with supervisors. The administrative law judge found that Wyatt A. could perform past relevant work as a mail sorter or bottle packer and could also adjust to other jobs existing in sufficient numbers in the national economy. The administrative law judge therefore concluded that Wyatt A. was not disabled.

Wyatt A. challenged the administrative law judge’s evaluation of medical opinions from David Mashburn, Ph.D., and Kara Zertuche, PMHNP-BC. The court reviewed the Commissioner’s decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which permits disturbing the decision for legal error or findings unsupported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate support for a conclusion.

Mashburn’s opinion

The administrative law judge found Mashburn’s opinion somewhat persuasive. Mashburn had conducted a one-time examination by telephone and found marked limitations in maintaining a schedule and regular attendance and in completing a normal workday and workweek without interruption from psychological symptoms. He also found several moderate limitations.

The administrative law judge found that some of Mashburn’s moderate-limitations opinions were supported by the examination and generally consistent with the medical record. The administrative law judge rejected the opinions about marked limitations and the opinion that Wyatt A. would have difficulty making simple work-related decisions, relying on improvement with medication, generally independent daily activities, mental-status examinations described as within normal limits, and evidence of good insight and judgment.

The court held that the administrative law judge erred by describing Wyatt A.’s treatment as conservative. The court noted that Wyatt A. had taken several medications for his mental impairments, including antipsychotic and antidepressant medications, and stated that such treatment is not considered conservative. The court nevertheless found the error harmless because the administrative law judge gave other reasons supported by substantial evidence, including Wyatt A.’s reported improvement, activities, normal mental-status findings, and 30 out of 30 score on the Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination. The court therefore upheld the administrative law judge’s partial rejection of Mashburn’s opinions.

Zertuche’s opinion

Zertuche found marked limitations in several areas, including making work-related judgments, understanding and carrying out complex instructions, and interacting with coworkers. She found extreme limitations in interacting with the public and supervisors, as well as moderate or mild limitations in certain areas involving simple instructions.

The administrative law judge rejected Zertuche’s opinions as inconsistent with generally conservative treatment, some improvement, mental-status examinations, and generally independent daily activities. The administrative law judge also rejected the opinions as unsupported because Zertuche allegedly relied heavily on Wyatt A.’s subjective reports.

The court again found that describing the treatment as conservative was erroneous. It also held that reliance on a claimant’s self-reported symptoms is not, by itself, a valid reason to reject an opinion about mental limitations. Because the administrative law judge gave no other supportability reason for rejecting Zertuche’s opinions, the court could not find the error harmless. The court noted that crediting Zertuche’s opinions could support a finding of disability because she found an extreme limitation in interacting with others.

Disposition

The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Wyatt A.’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. It vacates the Commissioner’s final decision and REMANDS for further administrative proceedings solely on whether the administrative law judge should accept or reject Zertuche’s opinions. On remand, the administrative law judge may not reject those opinions because Zertuche relied on Wyatt A.’s self-reporting or because Wyatt A. had conservative treatment, but may examine the remainder of the record. The court stated that a separate judgment would issue and that the clerk would close the file.