Sean E. M. v. Kijakazi

Background

Sean E. M. applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning May 14, 2013. After a hearing at which Sean E. M. testified with counsel and a vocational expert also testified, the administrative law judge found severe impairments including a history of traumatic brain injury, vertigo, and anxiety disorder. The administrative law judge found that Sean E. M. could perform a limited range of light work and concluded that Sean E. M. was not disabled.

Both sides moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule based on the administrative record.

Constitutional Challenge

Sean E. M. argued that the statutory restriction limiting the President’s ability to remove the Social Security Commissioner violated the Constitution and required reversal of the administrative law judge’s decision. The Commissioner conceded that the removal restriction violated separation-of-powers principles.

The court nevertheless rejected this challenge. It held that Sean E. M. lacked standing because the denial of benefits and the Appeals Council’s affirmance were not shown to be traceable to unlawful conduct by the Commissioner. Alternatively, the court held that Sean E. M. had not shown compensable harm connected to the removal restriction. The court explained that the unconstitutional restriction was severable from the rest of the Social Security statutes and did not eliminate the Commissioner’s authority to perform official duties. The court therefore rejected Sean E. M.’s request for a new hearing based on the constitutional argument.

Errors in the Disability Decision

The court found two errors in the administrative law judge’s evaluation of the disability claim.

First, the administrative law judge gave little weight to the opinion of treating provider Ellen Weiss, who had treated Sean E. M. since 2013. Weiss described substantial mental and functional limitations and stated, among other things, that Sean E. M. would miss more than four workdays per month. The administrative law judge discounted that opinion as inconsistent with normal mental-status examinations and Sean E. M.’s ability to work. The court found that explanation insufficient because it did not explain how the cited examinations or treatment records undermined Weiss’s specific opinion. The error was important because the vocational expert testified that missing work two or three times a week on an ongoing basis would prevent all work.

Second, the court found that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain the rejection of Sean E. M.’s testimony about the severity and frequency of symptoms. The administrative law judge cited activities such as sports, public transportation, shopping, drawing, fishing, camping, attempts to find work, improvement with medication, work after the alleged onset date, and community college grades. But the court said the administrative law judge did not address Sean E. M.’s explanation that these activities could be performed only sporadically and did not identify evidence contradicting the specific testimony about debilitating symptoms.

Remedy and Disposition

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s three-part “credit-as-true” standard for awarding benefits after an administrative error. It found that the record was complete, that the administrative law judge had failed to give legally sufficient reasons for rejecting Weiss’s opinion and Sean E. M.’s testimony, and that crediting the improperly rejected evidence required a finding of disability.

The court therefore GRANTED Sean E. M.’s motion for summary judgment, DENIED the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and REMANDED the matter for a determination of benefits.