Tadesse v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Background

Denta Tadesse applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning January 29, 2014. His application identified shoulder pain, HIV, and Hepatitis C, but did not identify mental impairments or depression. The Social Security Administration denied the application. After a hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found Tadesse not disabled and concluded that he could perform his past work as a waiter or restaurant manager.

Tadesse later filed this case. On March 31, 2020, this court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and denied Tadesse’s motion. Tadesse appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for further consideration of his mental limitations. The case returned to this court, which had jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Mental-Health Evidence

The opinion describes evidence from Tadesse’s primary-care physician, Dr. Joanna Eveland; Dr. John Brim; therapist Juan Cabrera; and Tadesse himself. Dr. Eveland diagnosed major depressive disorder and reported symptoms including hopelessness, anxiety, low motivation, poor concentration, irritability, anger, and difficulty maintaining work activity and completing tasks. Dr. Brim diagnosed intermittent explosive disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood. Cabrera’s notes described Tadesse’s homelessness, reduced enjoyment of life, difficulty concentrating, and missed or late appointments.

The ALJ found that Tadesse’s depression was not severe at the second step of the disability analysis. The court held that this finding was unsupported because the second-step inquiry is only a minimal screening, and the medical evidence showed more than a minimal effect on Tadesse’s ability to work.

The court also held that the ALJ improperly rejected or failed to consider the mental-health evidence. The ALJ rejected Dr. Eveland’s opinion because it was an evaluation rather than treatment, but the court found that reason inadequate because Eveland had treated Tadesse for two years and had personally observed him. The ALJ also failed to address important findings by Dr. Brim and gave no adequate reason for discounting Cabrera’s observations. The court further held that the ALJ did not provide the required specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting Tadesse’s testimony about his symptoms.

Because the ALJ did not provide adequate reasons for rejecting this evidence, the court credited Dr. Eveland’s opinion about Tadesse’s depression and symptoms, Dr. Brim’s observations about Tadesse’s ability to interact with others, Cabrera’s observations about hopelessness and concentration, and Tadesse’s testimony about his symptoms.

Residual Functional Capacity and Remand

Residual functional capacity (RFC) is the most a claimant can still do despite impairments. The court found that the ALJ’s RFC assessment did not adequately account for Tadesse’s mental limitations. Based on the credited evidence, the court found that Tadesse could not work with the public, would miss multiple unscheduled days per month, and would be off task 25 percent of the time. The vocational expert had testified that a person with those limits could not perform Tadesse’s past work as a waiter or restaurant manager.

The court nevertheless remanded for further proceedings rather than ordering an immediate award of benefits. Because the ALJ had not conducted the final step of determining whether other jobs existed in significant numbers, the court directed the ALJ to determine whether Tadesse could perform other available work. The court ordered that benefits be awarded if the Commissioner cannot establish that such work is available.

Disposition

The court VACATED its March 31, 2020 order granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and REMANDED the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The final order states that the ALJ erred by finding Tadesse’s mental limitations nonsevere and by failing to consider evidence concerning those limitations. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on June 29, 2022.