J.J. v. Commissioner

Background

J.J. sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s final decision denying applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. J.J. initially alleged disability beginning March 9, 1998, but later amended the alleged onset date to May 3, 2022, which eliminated the Title II claim. An administrative law judge held a telephonic hearing and later found J.J. not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments including schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder, mood or depressive disorder, personality disorder, and unspecified neurocognitive disorder. The judge found that J.J. had no past relevant work but retained the residual functional capacity—the most J.J. could still do despite the impairments—to perform work with physical and mental restrictions. Relying on vocational-expert testimony, the judge concluded that jobs existed in significant numbers that J.J. could perform.

Court’s Analysis

J.J.’s testimony. The court held that the administrative law judge did not give sufficiently specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting J.J.’s statements about the intensity and effects of the mental-health symptoms. The judge summarized the medical evidence but did not specifically identify which parts of J.J.’s testimony were not credible or explain why. The court also found that incorporating some of the testimony, including statements about medication side effects and symptom severity, could materially affect the residual functional capacity and the step-five work determination. The error therefore was not harmless.

Medical opinions. The court upheld the administrative law judge’s treatment of the opinions from Dr. Krikorian, Dr. Karyadi, and Dr. Wiebe. The court concluded that the judge reasonably considered supportability—how well a medical opinion is supported by its underlying evidence and explanation—and consistency—how well it fits with other evidence in the record. The court therefore did not find reversible error in the decision to treat portions of those opinions as only somewhat persuasive or to discount certain limitations.

Residual functional capacity. The court nevertheless found errors in the residual functional capacity assessment. The administrative law judge did not adequately explain how the assessment accounted for Dr. Karyadi’s opinion that J.J. had moderate limitations in accepting instructions from supervisors and interacting with coworkers and the public. The decision limited interaction with supervisors and coworkers but did not explain how it handled those portions of Dr. Karyadi’s opinion.

The court also found that the administrative law judge did not reconcile the medical opinions and testimony with the vocational expert’s testimony. The vocational expert testified that being off task for more than ten percent of the workday or missing work more than once a month would preclude all work. The decision did not explain the significance of Dr. Wiebe’s opinion concerning focus, concentration, pace, and rest periods, Dr. Krikorian’s opinion concerning regular attendance, or J.J.’s testimony about being unable to get out of bed on some days. The court held that these omissions were legal error and made the residual functional capacity finding unsupported by substantial evidence.

Listed impairments. The court also found that the administrative law judge did not sufficiently address evidence relevant to whether J.J.’s impairments met or equaled listed impairments, particularly Listings 12.03 and 12.08. The decision acknowledged hallucinations but did not analyze Listing 12.03 in light of the record. It also did not specifically analyze Listing 12.08 in light of evidence concerning paranoia, aggressive behavioral outbursts, and marked limitations in interacting with other people. The court held that this failure prevented affirmance of the step-three determination.

Remedy and disposition

J.J. requested an immediate award of benefits or, alternatively, further administrative proceedings. The court concluded that further proceedings were necessary because the record required additional consideration of J.J.’s testimony, the medical opinions, the residual functional capacity, the vocational evidence, and whether a listed impairment was met. The court therefore reversed the Commissioner’s final decision and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. The order resolved Dockets 14 and 22.