Savage v. Berryhill

Background

Rahamon Waking Savage asked the court to review an administrative law judge’s denial of his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The administrative law judge found that Savage had severe impairments, including substance-use disorder, obesity, affective mood disorder, major depressive disorder with psychotic features, generalized anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The administrative law judge determined that Savage retained the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his impairments—to perform work at all exertional levels, but only simple and routine tasks involving simple work-related decisions and occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public. The administrative law judge found that Savage could not perform his past work but could perform jobs such as janitor, advertising-material distributor, and dishwasher. The Appeals Council declined review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Motions and Arguments

Both parties moved for summary judgment. Savage argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated medical opinions, his symptom testimony, and Social Security Ruling 85-15 at the fifth step of the disability analysis. Andrew Saul argued that the administrative law judge gave sufficient reasons for discounting the opinions of several providers and properly relied on the opinion of consultative examiner Aparna Dixit and two non-examining state-agency consultants.

Medical-Opinion Evidence

The court held that the administrative law judge failed to provide adequate reasons for assigning little weight to the opinions of Dr. Laura Jean Catlin, Dr. Katherine Wiebe, nurse practitioner Kevin Lagor, and licensed clinical social worker Kari Jennings-Parriott. The court found that relying on Savage’s use of public transportation did not contradict opinions describing memory and information-processing limitations, particularly because Savage had fallen asleep on public transit, missed his stop, and became lost.

The court also found that describing Savage as pleasant and cooperative during examinations did not adequately undermine opinions based on years of treatment records and extensive testing showing anxiety, depression, paranoia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and difficulty interacting with others. The court further found that the administrative law judge improperly relied on isolated findings about attention, daily activities, medication response, and an appropriate mood and affect during a visit for arm pain.

For opinions from treating or examining medical providers that were contradicted by another medical opinion, the administrative law judge needed specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence. For providers treated as “other sources” under the rules applicable to Savage’s claim, the administrative law judge needed reasons germane—meaning specifically relevant—to each provider. The court concluded that the reasons given did not meet those standards. It also found that the administrative law judge did not adequately account for nurse Eve Mihata’s work with Dr. Karen Yun and the consistency between their evaluations.

Symptom Testimony

The court found that the administrative law judge also failed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting Savage’s testimony about the intensity of his symptoms. The court rejected the stated reliance on Savage’s ability to use public transportation, prepare simple meals, and clean. It also found that the administrative law judge incorrectly treated Savage’s reports of hallucinations and traumatic experiences as inconsistent because the record showed that he had reported those experiences to other providers.

Disposition

The court found that further proceedings were necessary because unresolved conflicts and factual issues remained. It therefore declined to order immediate payment of benefits and did not decide Savage’s remaining argument concerning Social Security Ruling 85-15. The court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Judge Robert M. Illman entered the order.