Reed v. Berryhill

Background

Mark Anthony Reed sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner’s decision on his application for disability benefits. He alleged physical and mental impairments, including back, knee, and shoulder pain, post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety.

An administrative law judge found that Reed had several severe impairments but could perform less than the full range of light work with restrictions to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks and limited public interaction. The judge concluded that Reed was not disabled because he could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Appeals Council later issued a partially favorable decision: it upheld the finding that Reed was not disabled before July 27, 2017, but found him disabled as of that date under a vocational rule concerning people of advanced age.

Reed and the Commissioner filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Reed argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the medical opinions, his testimony about pain and other symptoms, and his residual functional capacity, meaning his remaining ability to work despite his impairments.

Medical-opinion evidence

The court upheld the administrative law judge’s treatment of several medical opinions. The judge gave little weight to licensed clinical social worker Dawn Parrot’s opinion. The court held that the reasons given were adequate because the ultimate question of disability is reserved to the Commissioner, and because Reed did not identify which specific limitations in Parrot’s opinion were omitted from or inconsistent with the residual functional capacity finding.

The court also upheld the great weight given to examining physician Dr. Jenna Brimmer’s opinion. It held that an examining physician need not review the entire medical record if the opinion rests on an independent examination supported by substantial evidence. The court likewise rejected Reed’s challenge to the weight given to non-examining medical reviewer Dr. Lee’s opinion, concluding that Reed had not identified a legal error beyond disagreeing with the weight assigned.

The court did, however, find error in the treatment of State Agency psychiatric reviewer Dr. Patricia Heldman’s opinion. Heldman’s report did not address Reed’s repeated reports of auditory and visual hallucinations or Parrot’s opinion concerning severe recurrent depression with anxious distress. Heldman also relied substantially on Dr. Gupta’s opinion, while the administrative law judge gave Gupta’s opinion little weight. The administrative law judge did not address that inconsistency. The court therefore concluded that substantial evidence did not support giving Heldman’s opinion great weight.

Subjective-symptom testimony

The court also found that the administrative law judge failed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting Reed’s testimony about the severity of his symptoms and functional limitations.

The administrative law judge stated generally that Reed’s allegations were inconsistent with the record as a whole. The court held that this was too vague. The court also held that Reed’s ability to perform personal hygiene, dress himself, prepare simple food, do dishes and laundry, use the phone, and use public transportation did not by itself show that he could work, particularly because Reed testified that his girlfriend assisted him with many of those activities.

The Commissioner identified other possible reasons for discounting Reed’s testimony, including comments about exaggeration or limited effort, modest imaging findings, and inconsistent medication use. The court did not consider those reasons because the administrative law judge had not specifically relied on them. The court explained that it must review the reasoning and factual findings actually given by the agency rather than later explanations.

Disposition

Because the errors concerning the mental medical evidence and subjective-symptom testimony affected the heart of the disability determination, the court found that they were not harmless. It did not reach Reed’s additional arguments concerning the residual functional capacity.

Reed requested either an award of benefits or a remand for further proceedings. The court concluded that the record was not fully developed and that unresolved issues remained concerning Reed’s mental functional capacity and his testimony about pain and functional limitations. The court therefore granted Plaintiff’s motion, denied Defendant’s cross-motion, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Order. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the order.