Deonte R. R. v. Berryhill

Background

Deonte R. R. sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision for purposes of court review. Both parties moved for remand, disagreeing only about the type of remand.

The administrative law judge found that Deonte R. R. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity, had severe intellectual disability, recurrent and severe major depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms, and a mood disorder, but did not have an impairment meeting or equaling a listed impairment. The administrative law judge found that he could perform medium-level work limited to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks in a low-stress setting, with limited decision-making, workplace changes, and contact with others. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the administrative law judge identified floor waxer, hand packager, and laundry-worker jobs and found Deonte R. R. not disabled.

Medical Evidence and the Parties’ Positions

The record included evaluations by Jonathan Howard, Psy.D.; Aparna Dixit, Psy.D.; and Katherine Weibe, Ph.D., as well as a 2018 questionnaire from treating psychologist Ted M. Aames, Ph.D. Dr. Howard reported severe cognitive impairments, including a full-scale IQ score of 61, and marked limitations in several work-related abilities. Dr. Weibe reported severe cognitive and psychiatric impairments, including depression, anxiety, trauma-related symptoms, hallucinations, and significant difficulty interacting and communicating in a work setting. Dr. Aames reported marked limitations in every category of work-related functioning, an expected absence from work of more than four days per month, and being off-task for more than 30 percent of the workday.

Dr. Dixit reported few or no limitations in most work-related areas, and state-agency consultants also described mild or minimal limitations. The administrative law judge gave controlling weight to Dr. Dixit’s opinion and one non-examining consultant’s opinion while rejecting the opinions of Drs. Howard, Weibe, and Aames.

The Commissioner conceded that the administrative law judge’s analysis of the medical opinions and Deonte R. R.’s subjective complaints was deficient, but argued that conflicting evidence required further administrative proceedings. Deonte R. R. argued that the evidence should be accepted under the credit-as-true rule—a rule allowing a court to treat improperly rejected evidence as established when the legal requirements are met—and that the case should be remanded for calculation and payment of benefits.

Court’s Analysis

The court found several errors. First, the administrative law judge failed to discuss Deonte R. R.’s posttraumatic stress disorder and schizoaffective disorder at the second step of the disability analysis or later. Second, the administrative law judge improperly relied on Dr. Dixit’s opinion and the non-examining consultant’s opinion while rejecting the consistent opinions of Drs. Howard, Weibe, and Aames. The court concluded that Dr. Dixit’s outlying and conclusory opinion, standing alone, was not substantial evidence supporting the rejection of the other opinions.

The court held that the opinions of Drs. Howard, Weibe, and Aames were entitled to be credited as true. It concluded that, when those opinions were credited, Deonte R. R.’s major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and intellectual disorder met the requirements of Listings 12.04, 12.15, and 12.05. The court also concluded that the combined mental impairments left him with no residual capacity to function in the workplace. In addition, the vocational expert had testified that no work would be available for a person who was off-task 25 percent of the workday and absent at least three times per month; Dr. Aames had described greater limitations than those assumptions.

The court found that the record was fully developed, that no unresolved issue required another administrative hearing, and that the record did not create serious doubt about disability. It therefore determined that further proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

Disposition

The court granted Deonte R. R.’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion seeking remand for further proceedings. It reversed the administrative law judge’s finding of nondisability and remanded the case for the immediate calculation and payment of appropriate benefits.