Jeanett M. v. Kijakazi

Background

Jeanett M. applied for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging disability beginning April 18, 2018. She identified back pain, right hand pain, left hip pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety disorder. Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After hearings, the administrative law judge issued a second decision on June 30, 2020, finding that she was not disabled. The Appeals Council declined review.

The administrative law judge found that Jeanett M. had severe physical and mental impairments but did not have an impairment or combination of impairments meeting or equaling the listed impairments. The judge determined that she could perform medium work with restrictions involving her right hand, public contact, simple and routine tasks, attention, and supervision. The judge concluded that she could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide whether the administrative law judge properly evaluated Jeanett M.’s symptom testimony and the medical opinions.

Symptom Testimony

The court applied the rule that, after a claimant provides objective medical evidence of an impairment that could cause the alleged symptoms, an administrative law judge must give specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting symptom testimony when there is no finding of malingering.

The administrative law judge relied on activities including watching television, cleaning, using a computer, managing personal care and finances, shopping, walking, and going out to dinner or a show. The court found that this reasoning selected favorable portions of the record while disregarding evidence that Jeanett M. feared being outside, needed her husband in some situations, chose safe seating in restaurants, experienced trauma responses around unfamiliar people, and needed help with some daily tasks. The court held that these selectively cited activities did not provide a sufficiently clear and convincing reason to reject her testimony.

The administrative law judge also relied on portions of reports from Dr. Berry and Dr. Perez stating that Jeanett M. was improving, stable, or generally normal. The court found that the judge failed to address other portions of the reports describing regression, instability, continuing precautions, extreme distress, difficulty interacting with the public or unfamiliar people, and a likelihood of missing at least four workdays per month. The court held that selectively relying on the improvement statements was improper and that the doctors’ reports did not provide a sufficient reason to discredit Jeanett M.’s symptom testimony.

Medical Opinions

For disability applications filed under the newer regulations, medical opinions are evaluated principally for supportability and consistency rather than under a hierarchy that automatically gives greater weight to certain sources. Supportability concerns the objective evidence and explanations supporting an opinion; consistency concerns whether the opinion agrees with other medical and nonmedical evidence in the record.

The administrative law judge found that Dr. Berry and Dr. Perez mainly summarized Jeanett M.’s complaints, diagnoses, and treatment without medically acceptable clinical or diagnostic findings supporting their functional assessments. The court held that this conclusion was not adequately explained. Clinical interviews and evaluations can inform a mental-health assessment even when they partly rely on a patient’s self-report. The court also noted that Dr. Berry gave functional opinions about difficulty in public settings, inability to work with new people, and likely absences, and that the administrative law judge did not explain why those opinions were insufficiently supported.

The court further found that periods of improvement did not necessarily conflict with Dr. Berry’s overall conclusion that Jeanett M. could not work without missing more than four days per month. The record also described continuing serious limitations, sensitivity to everyday stressors, and difficulty controlling anxiety. As to Dr. Perez, the court found that the administrative law judge similarly failed to adequately explain the supportability finding and that the claimed inconsistency was not supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge did not adequately address supportability and consistency when evaluating the opinions of Dr. Berry and Dr. Perez and improperly evaluated Jeanett M.’s symptom testimony. Although Jeanett M. requested either an award of benefits or a remand, the court found that the record was not fully developed and that facts remained to be decided. The court therefore granted Jeanett M.’s motion for summary judgment, denied Kijakazi’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 18 and 21.