Lisa O. L. v. Kijakazi

Background

Lisa O. L. sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying her application for Title II disability insurance benefits. She alleged disability beginning January 1, 2014. The administrative law judge found that she had severe spine disorders, hearing loss, a seizure disorder, and a dysthymic disorder, but determined that she could perform light work with several restrictions and could perform jobs such as hand packager inspector and marker. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Both parties moved for summary judgment. Lisa argued, among other things, that the administrative law judge improperly rejected her testimony and lay-witness testimony, and that the residual functional capacity and Step Five findings lacked substantial evidence. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Evidence of Cognitive and Memory Problems

The record contained evidence that Lisa experienced memory loss, confusion, difficulty concentrating, and difficulty understanding and completing tasks. Medical records connected some memory problems to her seizures and noted possible encephalopathy or advanced dementia. Lisa’s husband reported that her memory loss affected her ability to handle money, follow instructions, maintain attention, manage stress, and remember appointments. Lisa similarly reported needing reminders to take medication and having limitations involving memory, concentration, understanding, and completing tasks.

A psychological evaluation by Amy Watt, Ph.D., included the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition; the Wechsler Memory Scale, Fourth Edition; and the Trail Making Test. The evaluation reported extremely low intellectual functioning, a full-scale intelligence quotient score of 68, serious delayed-memory impairment, and serious impairment in sequential abilities, executive functioning, planning, and organizational skills as tasks became more complex. The report also contained internal inconsistencies: it described valid testing and serious impairments but later attributed the low scores to hearing and physical disabilities and stated that Lisa had no cognitive impairment.

Thomas H. McCord, Ph.D., later found moderate to severe impairment in concentration, pace, and persistence and expressed concern about Lisa’s ability to keep pace with coworkers. The administrative law judge gave great weight to McCord’s opinion but did not include a corresponding limitation in the residual functional capacity. The administrative law judge gave Watt’s report no weight but did not explain whether the underlying intelligence, memory, and Trail Making test results were accepted or rejected.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge gave legally inadequate reasons for rejecting Lisa’s statements about memory and comprehension. The reasons were unclear and unconvincing. The court also held that the reasons for rejecting her husband’s statements were invalid because the administrative law judge’s reference to his lack of medical training was neither sufficiently specific nor appropriately related to his observations.

The court further held that the administrative law judge failed to fully and fairly develop the record concerning Lisa’s cognitive and memory-related problems. The evidence was ambiguous and inadequate for a proper evaluation, which triggered the administrative law judge’s duty to investigate further. The court noted that the administrative law judge had overlooked Lisa’s intelligence and memory test scores and had not properly addressed evidence relevant to the evaluation of intellectual disability and other mental limitations.

The court also determined that a new consultative examination was necessary. It ordered the Commissioner to arrange for another examiner to review the existing testing and, if necessary, conduct new testing. The examiner must also thoroughly develop the record regarding any adaptive-functioning deficits, meaning difficulties coping with ordinary daily, social, communication, academic, or personal demands.

Disposition

The court did not reach Lisa’s remaining challenges to the residual functional capacity or Step Five findings because those issues could be affected by further development of the record. It directed the Commissioner to consider the other issues raised in Lisa’s briefing and to address them in any later administrative law judge decision.

The court granted Lisa O. L.’s summary judgment motion, denied the Commissioner’s summary judgment motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order. On remand, the Commissioner was ordered to credit as true the statements by Lisa and her husband that were discussed in the opinion. Judge Robert M. Illman signed the order.