Werts Rosemayer v. Kijakazi

Background

Christopher Werts Rosemayer applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging disability beginning June 5, 2017. An administrative law judge denied the applications on November 18, 2019. The administrative law judge found that Rosemayer had two severe impairments—osteogenesis imperfecta, also known as brittle bone disease, and major depressive disorder—but retained the capacity to perform light work with limitations. The administrative law judge found that Rosemayer could perform work as a fast-food worker, cashier, or housekeeping cleaner.

Rosemayer sought judicial review and moved for summary judgment, asking the court to remand the case with instructions for immediate payment of benefits. The government also moved for remand, but requested further administrative proceedings instead of an immediate benefits award. Both parties agreed that the administrative law judge had inadequately assessed medical opinions, prior administrative medical findings, and Rosemayer’s statements about his symptoms.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s three-part standard for ordering an immediate benefits award: the administrative law judge must have failed to give legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence; no unresolved issues may remain; and the record must clearly require a finding of disability if the evidence is credited. The court concluded that the record did not satisfy the latter requirements.

Regarding Rosemayer’s mental impairments, the court found that the administrative law judge improperly identified only major depressive disorder as severe without adequately explaining why other diagnosed conditions were not severe. A consultative psychologist had diagnosed schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, amphetamine use disorder, and an anxiety disorder. The court directed the administrative law judge to conduct a proper analysis of the other mental impairments.

The court also found that the record did not adequately address how substance use affected Rosemayer’s mental limitations. The court directed the administrative law judge to communicate with the consultative psychologist about Rosemayer’s functional limitations with and without substance use. The court noted inconsistencies in Rosemayer’s statements about when he stopped using drugs and evidence concerning methamphetamine use, including an episode involving a jump from a moving car that resulted in multiple broken bones and a later suspected methamphetamine overdose.

The court likewise found unresolved issues concerning Rosemayer’s physical limitations. His treating physician, Dr. Daniel Toub, stated that Rosemayer was unable to work because of complications from the 2017 incident, but later left most of a functional-capacity questionnaire blank and repeatedly wrote that he could not assess the requested limitations. The court directed the administrative law judge to communicate with Dr. Toub about Rosemayer’s functional limitations. The court also cited evidence requiring further development, including Rosemayer’s reports of regularly going to the gym, doing push-ups, and riding a bicycle.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Rosemayer’s motion for summary judgment. It granted the government’s motion for remand and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order. The court did not order immediate calculation and payment of benefits.