Monteith v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Cindy Monteith applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. She alleged that she became disabled on January 30, 2013. The Social Security Administration denied her application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Cabotaje found that Monteith was not disabled.

The administrative law judge found that Monteith had medically determinable conditions, including polyneuropathy, carpal tunnel syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety. He decided that her mental conditions caused no more than minimal limitations in basic work activities and therefore were not severe. He assessed a residual functional capacity—the work a person can still perform despite physical and mental limitations—that allowed light work with certain restrictions. Based on vocational-expert testimony, he concluded that Monteith could perform her past relevant work as a cafeteria manager. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Issues

Monteith moved for summary judgment, asking the court to reverse the Commissioner’s decision. The Commissioner cross-moved for summary judgment, asking the court to affirm it. Monteith argued that the administrative law judge erred by failing to find a severe mental impairment and by finding that she could perform her past relevant work.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the second step of the disability process is a low-threshold screening inquiry. An impairment may be found not severe only when the evidence shows that it has no more than a minimal effect on the person’s ability to work. The administrative law judge must also consider limitations from both severe and non-severe impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.

The court held that the administrative law judge erred in finding that Monteith’s mental impairments were not severe. The Commissioner’s own psychological examiner, Jennifer Eggert, PhD, diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder and assessed work-related psychological limitations. State agency psychiatric consultant Aroon Suansilppongse, MD, also found severe mental impairments and assessed a mental residual functional capacity. That determination was affirmed on reconsideration. The court noted that these opinions were uncontradicted medical opinions concerning Monteith’s psychological conditions.

The court also found that the administrative law judge overstated the significance of normal mental-status examinations and failed to account for records documenting depression, anxiety, tearfulness, distress, and an emergency-room visit after Monteith reported suicidal thoughts. The judge also relied on activities such as gardening and exercising, but the court explained that those activities did not contradict the assessed limitations involving stress, social interaction, accepting instructions from supervisors, and dealing with competitive work environments. Finally, although an unexplained failure to seek treatment may be considered, the court found that the limited mental-health treatment was insufficient to support the finding that Monteith had no severe mental impairments.

Because the court found error in the severity analysis, it did not need to resolve the separate past-work issue. If the administrative law judge finds severe mental impairments on remand, the judge must assess a mental residual functional capacity, which could affect the decision about whether Monteith can perform her past relevant work.

Disposition

The court granted Monteith’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The opinion did not direct an award of benefits or determine that Monteith was disabled.