V.M. v. Kijakazi

Background

V.M. appealed from an Administrative Law Judge’s second denial of her application for disability benefits. The opinion states that V.M. filed an application for Supplemental Security Income in 2015 based on alleged disabilities beginning in 2014. The Administrative Law Judge first found her not disabled in 2017. After an earlier appeal, the case was remanded for further proceedings. The Administrative Law Judge again issued an unfavorable decision on July 9, 2021.

V.M. moved for summary judgment, reversal of the Commissioner’s final decision, or a remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). She argued that the Administrative Law Judge: (1) misapplied the second step of the disability evaluation process; (2) improperly discounted her testimony about her symptoms; and (3) failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the opinions of her treating and examining physicians.

Step-Two Analysis

At the second step, the Administrative Law Judge determines whether a claimant’s impairments are severe. An impairment is non-severe only if it is no more than a slight abnormality with no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

The Administrative Law Judge found that V.M. did not have a severe mental impairment. The Commissioner relied on evidence that V.M. took mental-health medication, led the Golden Gate Weavers organization, had only mild limitations in daily activities, and reported feeling stronger and participating in yoga and swimming.

The court found that this reasoning improperly weighted V.M.’s hobbies and pastimes. It explained that participation in activities and an active social life should not be treated as proof of an ability to work. The court also noted that depression symptoms can improve and worsen over time, and that periods of improvement and treatment should not obscure the record of serious impairment. The court therefore ordered reconsideration of the entire record concerning V.M.’s mental impairment.

Symptom Testimony

The court held that the Administrative Law Judge failed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting V.M.’s testimony about her symptoms. V.M. reported difficulty sitting and standing, problems involving her back, feet, legs, and shoulders, an inability to squat, and depression. The court found that these symptoms could reasonably result from her workplace fall and depression.

The Administrative Law Judge relied on spinal magnetic-resonance imaging, a physical examination, V.M.’s ability to dress and cook, her role as president of the Golden Gate Weavers Guild, and her participation in yoga and swimming. The court concluded that these reasons, separately or together, were not sufficient to discredit her testimony. It directed that the record be assessed holistically and over time rather than treating basic activities as negating disability.

Medical Opinions

The court also found that the Administrative Law Judge inadequately rejected the opinions of four doctors.

For Dr. Pang, an examining orthopedic surgeon, the Administrative Law Judge stated that the opinion was inconsistent with the overall record and compared V.M.’s organizational responsibilities with her prior work. The court found that taking calls and checking in with people at the weaving organization was substantially different from the physical limitations described by Dr. Pang, including a need for a break after sitting or driving for thirty minutes. The court also noted that V.M. had delegated as much work as possible after her injury but could not continue working. It found the reasons for rejecting Dr. Pang’s opinion inadequate and unsupported by substantial evidence.

For Dr. Rochette, the Administrative Law Judge used the same reasoning. The court found that Dr. Rochette’s opinions about V.M.’s need for breaks, fatigue, and lack of concentration were not contrary to the record, and that the comparison between V.M.’s prior occupation and her leadership of the weaving organization was unpersuasive. The court found insufficient reasons for rejecting the entire opinion.

For Dr. Cohen, V.M.’s treating psychiatrist since 2012, the Administrative Law Judge relied on the use of a check-mark form with little narrative explanation, limited treatment, and V.M.’s activities. The court noted that Dr. Cohen also supplied treatment records and described difficulty concentrating, medication-related fatigue, and the need for earlier aggressive depression treatment. It further stated that V.M.’s activities did not weigh against her application and that her history of electroconvulsive therapy, treatment-resistant depression, and brain surgeries had to be considered with her more limited current treatment. The court found the reasons for rejecting Dr. Cohen’s opinion inadequate and unsupported by substantial evidence.

For Dr. Anderson, the Administrative Law Judge noted that the detailed report was issued nearly a year after V.M.’s date last insured and cited V.M.’s purchase of a loom, creative activities, and regular hobbies. The court found that the report was based on V.M.’s condition and medical records from before the date last insured. It again cautioned against treating pastimes or therapeutic activities as inconsistent with a legally recognized disability and found the reasons for rejecting Dr. Anderson’s opinion inadequate and unsupported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

The court remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the Administrative Law Judge must reevaluate V.M.’s testimony and the medical opinions. The opinion does not state that the court itself found V.M. disabled or ordered an award of benefits.