Mackenzie P. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Mackenzie P. sought review of an administrative law judge’s denial of her application for child’s insurance benefits and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing at which Mackenzie P. and a vocational expert testified, the administrative law judge denied the application on May 10, 2024. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative law judge applied the five-step disability analysis. The judge found that Mackenzie P. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of October 18, 2013, and had severe impairments including major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and panic disorder. The judge found that the impairments did not meet or medically equal the listed impairments for depressive, anxiety, or neurodevelopmental disorders.

The administrative law judge determined that Mackenzie P. had the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her limitations—to perform work at all exertional levels, subject to mental and workplace restrictions. Those restrictions included repetitive work with a low pace, incidental interaction with the public, no more than occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors, and no tandem work or collaborative teamwork. The judge found that she could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including lab equipment cleaner, office cleaner, and cleaner II.

Issue and analysis

Mackenzie P. argued that the residual functional capacity was not supported by substantial evidence because the administrative law judge found Dr. Tania Shertock’s opinion persuasive as to moderate mental-health limitations but did not include several limitations identified in that opinion or explain their omission.

Dr. Shertock identified moderate impairments involving complex instructions, attention and concentration, pace, stress, persistence, adapting to changes in routine work settings, and the ability to complete a normal workday or workweek without interruptions from a psychiatric condition. The administrative law judge included restrictions addressing some limitations, including attention, pace, stress, and adapting to changes in routine work settings, but did not include attendance-related restrictions concerning workday or workweek completion.

The court rejected the government’s argument that the restrictions to repetitive, non-fast-paced work adequately addressed all of Dr. Shertock’s findings. The court explained that those restrictions might address concentration, persistence, and pace, but did not necessarily address attendance. The court also rejected the argument that a “moderate” limitation necessarily meant Mackenzie P. could function satisfactorily. The court stated that, if the evidence was unclear about the specific attendance restrictions required, the administrative law judge had a duty to develop the record and conduct an appropriate inquiry.

Ruling and disposition

The court held that the residual functional capacity did not account for the attendance-related limitations identified in Dr. Shertock’s opinion. Because the administrative law judge found the opinion persuasive as to the moderate limitations it identified but gave no reasons for rejecting or incorporating the attendance-related limitations, the court found legal error and concluded that the residual functional capacity was not supported by substantial evidence.

Judge P. Casey Pitts granted Mackenzie P.’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the administrative law judge was ordered to develop the record regarding functional work restrictions resulting from the attendance-related limitations and either incorporate those restrictions into the residual functional capacity or explain, with substantial-evidence support, why they could be disregarded. The opinion did not award benefits.