S.M. v. Saul

Background

S.M. appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision. The Commissioner awarded disability benefits beginning April 8, 2018, but denied benefits for April 1, 2016, through April 7, 2018. The administrative law judge found that S.M. had severe impairments including complex regional pain syndrome type 1, anxiety disorder, polycystic ovary syndrome, and fibromyalgia.

For the earlier period, the administrative law judge found that S.M. could perform sedentary work with limitations and would be absent from work once a month. For the period beginning April 8, 2018, the administrative law judge found that she would be absent three times a month. The administrative law judge found that S.M. could not perform her past work, but that other jobs were available before April 8, 2018. Beginning on that date, the administrative law judge found that no jobs existed in significant numbers that she could perform.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide whether the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and used proper legal standards.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge inadequately evaluated the medical opinions of Dr. Emily Cohen and Dr. Timothy Lo. Dr. Cohen opined that S.M. would likely be absent from work more than three times per month because of chronic pain. The administrative law judge treated that opinion as persuasive beginning April 8, 2018, but rejected the absence limitation for the earlier period. The court found that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain why the opinion became persuasive on April 8, 2018.

The court also found that the state-agency reviewers’ opinions did not support the distinction. Their evaluations occurred before and after April 8, 2018, but did not distinguish S.M.’s condition across that date. The court further found that one reviewer had considered Dr. Cohen’s April 2018 opinion and records concerning S.M.’s April 8 motor-vehicle accident, contrary to the administrative law judge’s reasoning.

Dr. Lo had also opined that S.M. would have been absent more than three times per month before April 8, 2018. The administrative law judge rejected that opinion for the same reasons used to reject the corresponding part of Dr. Cohen’s opinion. Because those reasons were insufficient, the court found that the administrative law judge also erred in evaluating Dr. Lo’s opinion.

The court did not reach S.M.’s arguments concerning the opinions of three mental-health providers because the errors involving Dr. Cohen’s and Dr. Lo’s opinions independently required further proceedings.

The court also found that the administrative law judge’s evaluation of S.M.’s testimony was tied to the flawed evaluation of the medical evidence. The administrative law judge had cited the objective findings, improvement with treatment, S.M.’s activities, and the lack of consistent observations of distress when evaluating her statements about the severity and effects of her symptoms. Because the medical-evidence analysis was erroneous, the court granted S.M.’s motion and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion on this issue.

The court further held that the administrative law judge did not adequately address statements from Fuji Dreskin and Eli Scislowicz. The statements described S.M.’s debilitating pain and the increasing effect of her symptoms on her activities. The administrative law judge referred generally to statements from S.M.’s friends but did not provide adequate reasons for rejecting those statements. The court therefore granted S.M.’s motion and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion on this issue as well.

Finally, the court found that the errors affected the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity finding—the determination of what a person can still do despite her limitations—and the conclusion that jobs were available before April 8, 2018. The court noted that the vocational expert testified that two absences per month would prevent all work, while the administrative law judge found that S.M. would be absent once a month before April 8, 2018.

Disposition

Judge Susan Van Keulen granted S.M.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court stated that it was not clear from the record that the administrative law judge would have to find S.M. disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated. On remand, the administrative law judge must properly evaluate the issues discussed in the opinion under applicable law; the court stated that it did not intend to limit the scope of the remand.