Preciado v. Saul

Background

Juan M. Preciado sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. He filed the applications on May 1, 2015, alleging disability beginning December 31, 2008. The administrative law judge denied the applications on November 20, 2017, and the Appeals Council denied review on September 17, 2018.

The administrative law judge found that Preciado had severe impairments consisting of degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and substance abuse. The judge found that Preciado did not have an impairment meeting or medically equaling a listed impairment and assessed a residual functional capacity for light work with additional limitations. The administrative law judge concluded that Preciado could not perform his past relevant work but could perform the jobs of janitor, usher, and advertising materials distributor.

Issues and Arguments

Preciado raised several challenges, including that the administrative law judge improperly found his depression non-severe at Step Two, improperly evaluated the medical evidence, assessed a residual functional capacity unsupported by substantial evidence, and improperly evaluated his testimony about the intensity, persistence, and effects of his symptoms. The court addressed together the arguments concerning the severity of Preciado’s depression and the weighing of the medical evidence.

Preciado argued that the administrative law judge should not have disregarded opinions and records from treating medical providers. Saul argued that Preciado had not established regular mental-health treatment or a medical opinion showing mental disability, and that the administrative law judge properly relied on the consultative examiner and state-agency consultants.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that an administrative law judge has an independent duty to fully and fairly develop the record, including by investigating facts and developing arguments both for and against granting benefits. That duty applies when medical evidence is ambiguous or inadequate to permit a proper evaluation of the claimant’s impairments and is heightened when the claimant may have a mental illness.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge did not satisfy that duty. The administrative law judge relied on Dr. Paul Martin, who examined Preciado once in 2015 and whose assessment underestimated Preciado’s impairments. The record also contained diagnoses of major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, and generalized anxiety from treating medical professionals, including Drs. Matthew Fentress, Ken Parker, and Mauricio Lask, Nurse Practitioner Hallie Chertok, and Licensed Clinical Social Worker Kari Jennings-Parriott. Some of those diagnoses occurred after Dr. Martin’s examination.

Because further administrative proceedings would serve a useful purpose, the court ordered a remand for further development of the record and a renewed sequential evaluation beginning at Step Two. The court declined to decide Preciado’s other arguments because they could be addressed during the remand proceedings.

Disposition

Judge Robert M. Illman granted Preciado’s motion for summary judgment and denied Saul’s motion for summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.