Gracie v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Christina Gracie sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. She alleged disability beginning October 20, 2014, after an acute ischemic stroke. The record described lasting expressive aphasia, or difficulty producing speech, along with right-sided weakness, memory problems, cognitive impairment, fatigue, and other conditions.

The administrative law judge found that Gracie had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. The judge found her stroke-related condition and unspecified neurocognitive disorder severe, but found her attention-deficit disorder, irritable bowel syndrome, and chronic adjustment disorder with depressed mood non-severe. The judge decided that Gracie did not meet a listed impairment, could perform light work with restrictions, could not perform her past relevant work, but could perform jobs such as mail clerk, cleaner, or office helper.

Issues and Analysis

Gracie argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated her stroke under Listing 11.04, applied the wrong vocational guidelines, failed to properly weigh her treating physicians’ evidence, and improperly discounted her testimony. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge correctly evaluated the listing, vocational guidelines, medical evidence, and symptom testimony.

The court concluded that the record was too poorly developed to determine whether Gracie’s condition met or equaled any part of Listing 11.04, which concerns the lasting effects of a stroke. Although the record showed that Gracie’s expressive aphasia persisted for more than three months, the court explained that the listing also required evidence of ineffective speech or communication as defined by the regulations. The hearing did not adequately develop the information needed to evaluate those requirements. The court found that the administrative law judge had a duty to develop the record and had failed to do so.

The court also found that the administrative law judge erred at Step Two by finding Gracie’s attention-deficit disorder, irritable bowel syndrome, and chronic adjustment disorder with depressed mood non-severe. The court determined that these conditions were not groundless and that the record showed they imposed significant limitations. It directed the administrative law judge to develop the record regarding the limitations caused by these conditions, including by obtaining information from Gracie and her treating and examining physicians.

The court further found an ambiguity in the psychological evidence. Because the consultative psychologist stated that the possible effect of Gracie’s medical condition was outside the scope of that evaluation and should be addressed by a medical opinion, the court ordered a consultative examination by a medical doctor specializing in neuropsychiatric disorders.

Disposition

The court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. It remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order. The court did not award benefits or decide that Gracie was entitled to benefits; instead, it required additional development of the record and instructed the administrative law judge to reconsider the issues raised in Gracie’s briefing as appropriate. Judge Robert M. Illman issued the order.