A.S. v. King

Background

A.S. sought judicial review of the denial of her application for child insurance benefits. The administrative law judge held a hearing on June 6, 2023, at which A.S. was represented by an attorney. On August 25, 2023, the administrative law judge denied the application and found that A.S. was not disabled. The judge found at step one that A.S. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity and at step two that she did not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments. The administrative law judge stopped the analysis at step two. The Appeals Council later declined to disturb that decision, making it final.

The medical opinion

A.S. argued that the administrative law judge failed to consider a report from Dr. Kristen Carraway, a licensed psychologist who treated A.S. from April 1, 2008, through August 5, 2008. Dr. Carraway’s report described symptoms and diagnoses including obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, somatization disorder, and bipolar disorder. It also discussed difficulties with daily functioning and task completion.

The Commissioner argued that the report was vague, concerned A.S.’s current impairments, and was not relevant to the claimed disability. The court rejected that argument. Under the Social Security regulations, an administrative law judge must consider medical opinions and explain how persuasive each opinion is. The court held that Dr. Carraway was an acceptable medical source and that the administrative law judge was required to address her opinion. Although the administrative law judge mentioned some information consistent with the report, the judge did not expressly accept or reject the opinion.

Harmless-error analysis

The court considered whether the omission was harmless. An error is harmless when it could not affect the final disability decision. The court held that it could not confidently conclude that considering Dr. Carraway’s opinion would have made no difference. The report addressed diagnoses and how symptoms affected A.S.’s abilities, so the failure to address it was not harmless.

Ruling and remand instructions

The court granted A.S.’s request for remand, reversed the Commissioner’s final decision, and remanded the case to the administrative law judge for further proceedings. The administrative law judge must specifically address Dr. Carraway’s medical opinion at step two of the five-step disability evaluation. The administrative law judge must also consider the other issues raised in A.S.’s briefing concerning the sufficiency of the administrative record and modify any later decision as appropriate.

The court did not reach A.S.’s remaining arguments because the case was being remanded for further proceedings. The order states that the case will be terminated after resolution of any attorney-fee issue, or if no fee request is received by March 10, 2025.