Bass v. Berryhill

Background

Latrice Bass sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s denial of her applications for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income. Bass alleged disability based on diabetes, obesity, sleep apnea, memory problems, panic attacks, high blood pressure, insomnia, depression, anxiety, pain, neuropathy, and other conditions. At the hearing, she amended her alleged onset date to November 9, 2010, and appeared with an attorney.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments consisting of obesity, carpal tunnel syndrome, depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The judge did not classify diabetes or hypertension as severe impairments, but stated that the diabetes was without complications and that Bass had not consistently taken her medications or attended diabetes education. The judge found that Bass did not meet a listed impairment and assessed a residual functional capacity for medium work with restrictions, including occasional bilateral fingering, simple routine tasks, simple work-related decisions, and occasional interaction with the public. The judge concluded that Bass could not perform her past work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Issues and analysis

Bass argued that the administrative law judge failed to consider diabetes and obesity properly, rejected medical opinions without adequate reasons, discounted her statements improperly, assessed a residual functional capacity unsupported by substantial evidence, and improperly relied on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines rather than vocational-expert testimony.

The court held that any error in failing to classify diabetes as a severe impairment at the second step was harmless because the administrative law judge considered symptoms Bass attributed to diabetes and obesity when assessing her residual functional capacity. The court also found that Bass had not identified medical evidence of obesity-related functional limitations that the administrative law judge failed to consider. The court therefore did not find reversible error on those issues.

The court did find error in the treatment of the psychological opinions. Dr. Van Gaasbeek identified moderate impairment in interacting with coworkers and the public, moderate-to-substantial impairment in completing a normal workday without psychiatric interruptions, and moderate-to-substantial impairment in dealing with ordinary workplace stress. Although the administrative law judge gave significant weight to that opinion, the court concluded that the residual functional capacity did not adequately account for all of the accepted moderate-to-substantial limitations.

The court also held that the administrative law judge improperly discounted Dr. Thomsen’s opinion. Dr. Thomsen’s assessment relied partly on Bass’s self-reports, clinical assessments, and a review of treatment records. The court explained that reliance on self-reported symptoms is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to reject a mental-health opinion. The administrative law judge also mischaracterized Bass’s daily activities, including how often she played cards, went shopping, and ran errands with her mother. Because those mischaracterizations contributed significantly to the rejection of Dr. Thomsen’s limitations, the court found the analysis erroneous.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted Bass’s motion for summary judgment, denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order. The court stated that it did not need to decide whether the administrative law judge also erred in evaluating Bass’s other statements, determining the residual functional capacity, or relying on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines instead of vocational-expert testimony. The court explained that the ultimate merits would not be clear until the administrative law judge properly reconsidered the opinions of Dr. Van Gaasbeek and Dr. Thomsen and considered whether Bass’s more consistent mental-health treatment affected the limitations assessed.