Aileana W. v. Saul

Background

Aileana W. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits, alleging disability beginning July 1, 2007. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge found that Aileana W. was not disabled and concluded that she could perform other jobs available in the economy, including farm worker II, hand packager, and industrial cleaner or sweeper.

Aileana W. asked the court for summary judgment reversing the administrative decision and ordering an immediate award of benefits. The Commissioner agreed that the decision had to be reversed because the administrative law judge improperly evaluated psychologist Maria Kerosky’s opinions, but argued that the case should instead be sent back for further administrative proceedings.

Issue

The issue was whether the error in evaluating Dr. Kerosky’s opinions required an immediate award of benefits or further proceedings before the Social Security Administration.

Reasoning

The court explained that, under the rules applicable to Aileana W.’s application, administrative law judges must assess the persuasiveness of medical opinions using factors that include supportability and consistency. The Commissioner conceded that the administrative law judge failed to evaluate Dr. Kerosky’s opinions under those requirements and did not address those two factors.

The parties agreed that the second and third parts of the Ninth Circuit’s three-part “credit-as-true” standard were satisfied. Under that standard, a court may order benefits when the record is fully developed, the administrative law judge gave legally insufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, and crediting that evidence as true would require a finding of disability. The parties disagreed about whether the record was fully developed and whether further proceedings would be useful.

The court concluded that further proceedings were appropriate. The administrative law judge had relied partly on the limited treatment records available at the time, but had not considered records from the Wright Institute Recovery Clinic. Those records included two intake visits and nine therapy sessions and contained additional observations about Aileana W.’s functioning. The court held that the administrative law judge should reconsider the medical-opinion evidence and Aileana W.’s testimony in light of those records.

Disposition

Judge Donna Ryu granted in part and denied in part Aileana W.’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion to remand, and remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings. The court did not order an immediate award of benefits.