E.G. v. O'Malley

Background

E.G. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her disability-benefits application. The opinion focuses on E.G.’s mental impairments, including intellectual limitations, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress related to her brother’s death and her breast-cancer diagnosis. E.G. did not challenge the administrative law judge’s assessment of her physical impairments and did not ask the court to award benefits directly.

The administrative law judge found that E.G. had several severe impairments but did not meet a listed impairment. The judge assigned E.G. a residual functional capacity—an assessment of what work-related activities she could still perform—with limits including light work, simple routine tasks, occasional interaction with coworkers and the public, and work in a task-oriented environment without a specific production pace. Based on a vocational expert’s testimony, the judge found that E.G. could work as a routing clerk, housekeeping cleaner, or router.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge failed to identify the specific testimony that was being rejected. The judge had stated generally that E.G.’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and effects of her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the record. That left unclear which testimony the judge credited, which testimony the judge rejected, and how the testimony related to the assigned residual functional capacity.

The court also held that the stated reasons did not satisfy the requirement for clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence. The administrative law judge relied on E.G.’s early-morning routine, but the cited family report indicated that E.G. woke when her husband woke and then generally returned to bed. The court found no substantial evidence that E.G. helped her husband prepare for work in the morning, as the administrative law judge had asserted. The record also included E.G.’s testimony that her husband often helped her get out of bed.

The court rejected reliance on E.G.’s statement to a doctor that she wanted to pursue disability benefits based on physical rather than psychological reasons. The record did not explain why E.G. made that statement, and the administrative law judge had not asked her about it at the hearing. The court also found that receiving unemployment benefits, without more information about whether E.G. represented that she could perform full-time or part-time work, did not provide a clear and convincing reason to reject particular symptom testimony.

Issues not decided

Because the errors concerning E.G.’s testimony required reversal and remand, the court did not decide E.G.’s arguments about the administrative law judge’s treatment of Dr. Sabina Correa’s opinions or the use of “specific production pace” in the residual functional capacity. The court identified those matters as issues that could warrant further consideration on remand, but did not rule on them.

Disposition

Judge A J. Cisneros reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of E.G. and close the case.