Belinda P. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Belinda P. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act in August 2020, alleging disability beginning December 1, 2019. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Mark Solomon denied the application on June 1, 2023. The Appeals Council denied review on March 6, 2024, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative law judge found that Belinda P. had severe lumbar degenerative disc disease, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and insomnia. He determined that she could perform medium work with physical, mental, and social limitations. Although she could not return to her past work as an account clerk, he found that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform.

Belinda P., represented by counsel, filed this federal action seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision. She moved for judgment on the pleadings, meaning she asked the court to decide the case based on the existing written record. The Commissioner opposed her motion and requested judgment on the pleadings in the Commissioner’s favor.

Medical Opinion Evidence

The court held that the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate the medical opinion evidence concerning Belinda P.’s mental impairments. Under the regulations applicable to her claim, the administrative law judge had to evaluate the persuasiveness of each medical opinion, including its supportability and consistency with other evidence, and explain that evaluation.

Martin Oviasogie, a psychiatric nurse practitioner who had treated Belinda P. weekly for psychotherapy and monthly for medication management since May 2020, assessed marked limitations in activities of daily living, social functioning, and concentration, persistence, or pace. He stated that she was not in a stable mental state to work full- or part-time. The administrative law judge found this opinion unpersuasive because he considered it inconsistent with the overall mental-health record.

The court identified several problems with that assessment. First, the administrative law judge did not appear to consider that Mr. Oviasogie had treated Belinda P. for more than two years. The court explained that a treating source’s opportunity to observe and treat a person can be important support for a medical opinion, particularly in mental-health cases.

Second, the administrative law judge did not adequately consider that Mr. Oviasogie’s opinion was substantially consistent with the opinions of two consultative psychiatric examiners. Dr. Arlene Broska assessed marked or moderate limitations in several areas, including social interaction, concentration, pace, regular attendance, and emotional regulation. Dr. Michelle Sanders assessed moderate to marked limitations in concentration, pace, routine, and regular attendance. The court found that the administrative law judge considered these opinions separately and did not account for their consistency with one another or with Mr. Oviasogie’s opinion.

Third, the court found that the administrative law judge placed too much weight on Belinda P.’s ability to appear appropriate and stable during relatively brief and infrequent treatment encounters. The court stated that functioning in structured or supportive treatment settings does not necessarily show the ability to function in regular employment during a normal workday or workweek. It also noted that the record continued to document diagnoses and symptoms involving anxiety, insomnia, depression, anxious distress, interpersonal problems, and paranoia.

Subjective Complaints

Belinda P. testified that she was frequently confused, relied on her daughter for support, experienced daily depression and anxiety, had interpersonal problems and panic attacks, struggled with changes and stress, and had memory problems affecting daily activities. The administrative law judge found that her impairments could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms but concluded that her statements about their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects were not fully credible.

The court held that her subjective complaints would need to be reconsidered on remand. In the court’s view, those complaints were largely consistent with the opinions of her treating psychiatric nurse practitioner and the two consultative psychiatric examiners. Because the administrative law judge’s evaluation of the medical opinions affected the assessment of her residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments—the court required reconsideration of the symptom evidence as well.

Disposition

Judge Gary R. Jones granted Belinda P.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The court remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings consistent with the decision and directed the Clerk to enter final judgment and close the file. The decision did not award disability benefits or decide that Belinda P. was disabled.

Result

The Commissioner’s final decision denying benefits was sent back for further administrative proceedings because the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate the mental-health medical opinions and Belinda P.’s subjective complaints.