Ross v. Berryhill

Background

Lee Ann Ross sought disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act for the period from October 24, 2014, through December 31, 2019. An administrative law judge held a hearing and denied the claim. The administrative law judge found that Ross had severe bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression, but determined that her ability to work allowed her to perform jobs existing in the national economy, including custodian work. After the Social Security Appeals Council declined review, Ross and the Commissioner filed competing motions for summary judgment, asking the court to rule based on the administrative record.

Medical-opinion evidence

The court held that the administrative law judge did not provide legally sufficient reasons for giving little weight to the opinion of Ross’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Wermuth. Because that opinion conflicted with the opinions of non-examining state-agency physicians, the administrative law judge needed specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject it.

The court rejected each stated reason. First, the administrative law judge said that mental-status examinations consistently showed normal moods, but the record contained approximately 70 examinations, and more than half reported that Ross was depressed and/or anxious. Because mental impairments were the only severe impairments identified, this misstatement was not harmless. Second, the administrative law judge said Dr. Wermuth’s opinion conflicted with Dr. Marinos’s examination, but Dr. Marinos reported that Ross’s mood was anxious, not normal as the administrative law judge stated. Third, the administrative law judge did not explain how Dr. Wermuth’s restrictions conflicted with Ross’s daily activities. Fourth, the absence of treatment records before 2014 could not support discounting the opinion because those records had not been requested and the relevant disability period began in October 2014. The court also concluded that intermittent mental-health treatment was not a sufficient reason to reject Dr. Wermuth’s opinion.

The court separately found that the administrative law judge’s treatment of Dr. Marinos’s opinion required remand because the administrative law judge incorrectly described Dr. Marinos as finding a normal mood rather than an anxious mood. In light of these errors, the administrative law judge also had to reconsider the weight given to the opinions of the non-examining state-agency physicians, Dr. Goosby and Dr. Ikawa.

Other issues

The court treated Ross’s challenge to the analysis of Listing 12.04, which concerns certain mental disorders, as a close question. The administrative law judge addressed the requirements under Paragraphs B and C, but the Paragraph B analysis relied on the medical-opinion analysis that the court found erroneous. On remand, the administrative law judge had to reassess the listing criteria in light of the corrected medical-evidence analysis.

The court also required a new evaluation of Ross’s statements about the intensity and effects of her symptoms because that evaluation was tied to the flawed medical-evidence analysis. In addition, the administrative law judge had failed to address testimony from Ross’s husband that she was reclusive and increasingly forgetful, and comments from Social Security Representative Ngo that Ross had trouble concentrating and required repeated questions. The court held that these errors also had to be corrected on remand.

The court rejected Ross’s challenge to the refusal to allow Dr. Wermuth to testify by telephone. The administrative law judge had offered Dr. Wermuth the options of testifying in person or submitting written evidence. Under these circumstances, refusing telephone testimony was not an abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The court concluded that further proceedings were warranted because the errors in evaluating the medical evidence may have affected the analysis of Listing 12.04, Ross’s statements about her symptoms, and the lay-witness testimony. The court therefore granted Ross’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. It did not order an immediate award of benefits.