Colton C. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Colton C. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for supplemental security income. He applied in June 2022 and alleged that his disability began on November 1, 2018. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the application on March 29, 2024, and that decision became final on April 11, 2025.

The ALJ found severe impairments including anxiety, depression, personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and somatoform disorder. The ALJ concluded that these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The ALJ determined that Colton C. could perform work at all exertional levels, subject to limits on the complexity of instructions and interactions with supervisors, coworkers, and the public. Because he had no past relevant work, the ALJ proceeded to the final step and found that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he could perform.

Arguments and analysis

Colton C. argued that the ALJ erred by failing to address the regular absences he would require from work and by improperly evaluating the opinion of his therapist, Jessica Jacovitch. He also argued that the residual functional capacity assessment was not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ allegedly selected only favorable evidence, improperly evaluated his subjective complaints, ignored his reason for not taking medication, and misinterpreted his daily activities. The Commissioner argued that the ALJ properly considered the record and that Colton C. had not shown that appointments would require absences from work. The Commissioner did not respond to the argument concerning Jacovitch’s opinion.

The court held that the ALJ’s evaluation of Jacovitch’s opinion was legally inadequate. The ALJ said the opinion was not persuasive because its limitations were inconsistent with “the evidence,” and said the evidence did not support certain conclusions, but did not identify the supporting or conflicting evidence. The court explained that an ALJ must discuss the opinion’s supportability—how well it is supported by medical evidence and explanations—and consistency—how well it fits with other evidence. The court also noted that the ALJ’s statement about supportability was incomplete. Because the explanation was conclusory and incomplete, it did not permit appropriate judicial review.

The court also held that the ALJ erred by failing to address absenteeism. The vocational expert testified that no absences would be tolerated during the first month of the identified jobs and that only one absence per month would be tolerated afterward. The expert also testified that an absence included leaving early or arriving late. The ALJ knew about Colton C.’s regular therapy schedule because she asked about it at the hearing. The court rejected the Commissioner’s post-decision explanation that Colton C. had not met his burden to show absenteeism, because the court could not uphold the ALJ’s decision based on reasoning supplied later by appellate counsel.

Disposition

The court found that the errors were not harmless because the ALJ might have reached a different result after properly considering Jacovitch’s opinion and absenteeism. The court did not fully reach Colton C.’s other arguments, but directed the ALJ to revisit all the evidence when reconsidering the residual functional capacity.

Judge Donovan W. Frank declined to reverse the ALJ’s decision and order an immediate award of benefits. The order granted in part Colton C.’s request for relief, denied the Commissioner’s request for relief, and remanded the matter under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.