K.M. v. Commissioner

Background

Kameron M. applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, alleging disability beginning June 14, 2019. The applications were initially denied and denied again on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge found him disabled but assigned a May 25, 2021 onset date. The Appeals Council denied review, and Kameron M. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The opinion describes physical impairments including hand, back, and knee pain, as well as depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms, anxiety disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, and posttraumatic stress disorder. The administrative law judge identified the mental-health conditions as severe impairments. The opinion also states that Kameron M. had received child Social Security disability benefits from age 11 through age 18.

The parties’ positions

Kameron M. argued that the administrative law judge incorrectly selected May 25, 2021 instead of June 14, 2019 as the disability onset date. The Commissioner agreed that the decision contained legal errors but argued that the case should be sent back for further proceedings so the administrative law judge could reconsider the testimony and medical opinions.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s “credit-as-true” rule, which can allow a court to award benefits when the administrative law judge improperly rejected evidence, the record is complete, no unresolved issues require agency consideration, and crediting the evidence would require a finding of disability.

The Commissioner conceded that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated medical-opinion evidence. The judge found the opinions of Nurse Practitioner Farooq Azam and treating therapists Ann Sussman and Joann B. Wojick persuasive but did not address their opinions about Kameron M.’s onset date. Azam identified an onset date of 2011, and the therapists identified “childhood.” The administrative law judge also erred in rejecting Kameron M.’s symptom testimony because he received limited treatment between November 2019 and May 2021. The Commissioner acknowledged that limited treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic was not unreasonable for reasons beyond Kameron M.’s control.

The court concluded that the May 25, 2021 date was arbitrary because it was based on Kameron M.’s return to mental-health treatment after a hiatus. Because the Commissioner conceded that the lack of treatment during the pandemic could not properly support that date, the court found no substantial-evidence basis for selecting May 25, 2021 over June 14, 2019.

The court further determined that the medical opinions the administrative law judge had credited supported the earlier date. Azam and Sussman described marked-to-extreme limitations in nearly all areas of functioning, and the administrative law judge found their opinions persuasive, well supported, and consistent with other medical opinions. The court found no serious doubt, considering the record as a whole, that Kameron M. was disabled as of June 14, 2019.

Disposition

The court exercised its discretion to remand for an award of benefits. It REVERSED the Commissioner’s decision and REMANDED for an award of benefits. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 20 and 25.