Corvelo v. Kijakazi

Background

Juvenal Corvelo had received supplemental security income benefits after an administrative law judge found him disabled beginning February 14, 2006. A continuing disability review determined that he was no longer disabled as of August 1, 2016. An administrative law judge affirmed that determination on December 20, 2018, and the Appeals Council denied further administrative review. Corvelo then sought judicial review under Section 405(g) of Title 42.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Corvelo argued that the administrative law judge had rejected all medical opinions concerning his mental limitations, inadequately supported the rejection of treating physicians’ opinions about HIV-related fatigue, failed to properly consider his symptom testimony, and failed to consider his medical condition through the 2018 hearing.

The Mental-Health Medical Opinions

Four doctors provided opinions about Corvelo’s mental impairments: treating physician Lawrence McGlynn; examining physician Charles DeBattista; and non-examining consulting physicians E. Murillo and Kathryn Econome. Each found some degree of mental limitation. The administrative law judge gave all four opinions little weight, generally relying on what the judge described as largely unremarkable mental-status examinations.

The administrative law judge also relied on Corvelo’s 2016 questionnaire and three excerpts from mental-status examinations by Dr. McGlynn. The court found that these materials provided limited context and that the administrative law judge had selected only portions of the treatment records. The court further noted that the medical expert whose opinion received great weight, Minh D. Vu, had testified only about Corvelo’s physical condition and had not offered an opinion about his mental impairments.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that, after rejecting every medical opinion concerning Corvelo’s mental impairments, the administrative law judge based the mental-limitations findings and the mental residual functional capacity assessment on the judge’s own interpretation of raw medical evidence. The court found that those findings were not supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the conclusion.

The court rejected the Acting Commissioner’s argument that the error was harmless because one rejected opinion described Corvelo as capable of simple, repetitive work. The court explained that it was required to review the reasons the administrative law judge actually gave and could not adopt an opinion that the administrative law judge had expressly rejected.

Because the mental-opinion error required remand, the court did not decide Corvelo’s other arguments, except to conclude that an immediate award of benefits was not appropriate. The court determined that further administrative proceedings would be useful.

Disposition

The court granted Corvelo’s motion for summary judgment to the stated extent, denied his request for an immediate determination of benefits, denied the Acting Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. Judge William Alsup signed the order on April 21, 2022.