Bobbie R. v. O'Malley
- Robert Illman
- 1:23-cv-05770
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Bobbie R. v. O’Malley, Judge Illman remanded the Social Security case because the ALJ failed to properly consider PTSD.
Bobbie R. is affected because the denial of benefits was remanded for further proceedings; the Social Security Administration must reconsider the case consistent with the court’s instructions.
What happened
In Bobbie R. v. O’Malley, Bobbie R. sought review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying her application for Social Security benefits. The judge found that she was not disabled and could perform other jobs, even though she could not return to her past work.
The court found that the administrative law judge failed to properly consider Bobbie R.’s post-traumatic stress disorder at the required evaluation steps and when determining her work-related limits. The court said this failure meant the decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the record needed further development.
Judge Robert Illman remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not decide Bobbie R.’s remaining arguments, leaving those issues for possible consideration on remand.
The detailed version
- Bobbie R. v. O'Malley · No. 1:23-cv-05770
- Robert Illman
- Mar. 11, 2025
Background
Bobbie R. sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying her application for benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision for purposes of district-court review.
Bobbie R. alleged, among other things, that the administrative law judge failed to properly consider her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at Step Two, Step Three, and when determining her residual functional capacity (RFC), meaning her work-related abilities. The record included evidence that she had experienced PTSD and received counseling for it. The vocational expert testified that a person with the limitations identified by the administrative law judge could perform jobs such as hospital cleaner, kitchen helper, warehouse worker, cleaner II, or mail clerk.
The administrative law judge found that Bobbie R. could perform simple, routine tasks involving simple work-related decisions, limited interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public, and no tandem or team work. The administrative law judge concluded that she was not disabled because she could perform other work, although she could not perform her past work.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed whether the administrative law judge’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the decision was based on legal error. The court found that the administrative law judge appeared not to have evaluated Bobbie R.’s PTSD symptoms and limitations under Listing 12.15 at Step Three or considered them when formulating the RFC. Although the administrative law judge mentioned PTSD twice, the court found that he did not address its symptoms and effects on her work-related abilities.
The Commissioner argued that any error was harmless because Bobbie R. had not shown prejudice, other mental impairments had been considered, and some treatment providers had not diagnosed PTSD. The court rejected that argument. It explained that a Step Two error is harmless only when the impairment is considered during the Step Three analysis and RFC formulation.
The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s failure to consider PTSD was legal error, reflected a failure to properly develop the record, and caused the Step Three and RFC findings to lack substantial-evidence support. The court also stated that PTSD warranted serious consideration in developing a full and fair disability record and that the combined physical and mental conditions might be disabling, although it did not decide that question.
Disposition
The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its holdings and instructions. Because additional record development was necessary, the court declined to address Bobbie R.’s remaining arguments. A separate judgment was to issue.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.