Baglio v. Berryhill

Background

Kerrie Baglio appealed the Social Security Administration’s final denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The administrative law judge found that Baglio had severe impairments consisting of bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and polysubstance dependence. The judge found that she could not perform her past work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Baglio moved for summary judgment, arguing that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated opinions from treating and examining providers, inadequately assessed her testimony about her symptoms, calculated her work capacity without sufficient evidence, relied on incomplete vocational-expert testimony, and was improperly appointed under the Constitution. The Commissioner opposed Baglio’s motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

Medical-opinion evidence

The court held that the administrative law judge did not provide the specific and legitimate reasons required for giving only partial weight to psychiatrist Dr. Mains’s opinions. The judge stated that the opinions were inconsistent with the record but did not explain how or why. The court also found that treating Dr. Mains’s statements about Baglio’s work-related limitations as administrative findings did not justify discounting the underlying three-year treatment history. In addition, the record showed that Dr. Mains had identified Baglio’s substance use and treatment noncompliance, contrary to the administrative law judge’s stated reason for discounting the opinions.

The court also found that the administrative law judge did not clearly evaluate the opinions and treatment records of Dr. Yun and Ms. Byrd. The judge referred generally to “crisis evaluations,” but the court could not determine whether the judge had considered or rejected the providers’ later evaluations from multiple treatment visits. Because the decision did not explain the basis for disregarding those opinions, the court could not adequately review the analysis.

The court concluded that these errors were not harmless. Reconsideration of the medical opinions could affect the assessment of Baglio’s limitations, her work capacity, and the decision about whether she could perform other work.

Other issues

The court upheld the administrative law judge’s assessment of Baglio’s testimony about the intensity and effects of her symptoms. The judge relied on her reported daily activities, living situation, ability to testify coherently, interactions with others and providers, treatment history, and inconsistent medication use. The court found that these were specific, clear, and convincing reasons for partially crediting her testimony.

The court rejected Baglio’s challenge under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Baglio had not raised that challenge during the administrative proceedings or before filing her motion in the district court, so the court found it untimely.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Baglio’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. It remanded the action for further administrative proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court stated that an award of benefits was not warranted because the administrative law judge could potentially correct the identified errors on remand. The clerk was directed to close the case.