Ingrid C. v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Background

Susanne Ingrid C. sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income. She alleged disability based on anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, back problems, and headaches. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Ifeoma N. Iwuamadi found that Ingrid C. was not disabled. The Administrative Law Judge determined that she could not return to her prior skilled work as a public-relations representative but could perform other unskilled jobs, including hand packer, hospital cleaner, and laundry worker.

Ingrid C. challenged the decision on two principal grounds. She argued that the Administrative Law Judge improperly evaluated the opinion of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Erwin Ting, and failed to account for limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace when determining her residual functional capacity—the work she could perform despite her impairments. The Commissioner argued that substantial evidence supported the agency’s decision and that the Administrative Law Judge properly evaluated Dr. Ting’s opinion and Ingrid C.’s work capacity.

Analysis

The recommendation concluded that the Administrative Law Judge failed to properly assess the consistency of Dr. Ting’s opinion with the record. Although the Administrative Law Judge identified Dr. Ting as Ingrid C.’s treating psychiatrist, the decision did not adequately account for the significance of his treatment relationship. The Administrative Law Judge relied on an isolated examination, selected treatment notes showing temporary stability, Ingrid C.’s ability to perform daily activities, and the absence of psychiatric hospitalization, but did not adequately address later records describing worsening memory, concentration, anxiety, and depression.

The recommendation also found that the Administrative Law Judge misread some treatment notes as showing medical improvement when they did not do so. It further concluded that driving, shopping, managing finances, socializing, and other daily activities did not establish that Ingrid C. could perform unskilled work on a sustained basis during a normal workweek. Similarly, a normal or largely normal mental-status examination during a brief examination did not necessarily show that she could consistently meet workplace demands.

The recommendation rejected Ingrid C.’s separate argument that the Administrative Law Judge necessarily erred by finding moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace at one stage of the disability analysis while allowing unskilled work. It explained that those findings do not automatically determine residual functional capacity and that unskilled work can be consistent with moderate mental limitations. However, the recommendation found that the Administrative Law Judge still failed to consider whether Ingrid C.’s mental-health symptoms would affect her differently in a work setting than in lower-stress daily activities.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky respectfully recommended that Ingrid C.’s motion be granted and that the matter be remanded for further proceedings. The recommended remand called for reconsideration of the medical-opinion evidence, appropriate consideration of Dr. Ting’s treating relationship, analysis of whether daily activities and brief medical examinations reflected sustained work capacity, and further development of the record concerning expected off-task behavior and absences. The opinion is a report and recommendation addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman; the text provided does not state that Judge Liman adopted it. The parties were given fourteen days to file objections.