E.E. v. Kijakazi
- Joseph Spero
- 3:21-cv-02104
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 20
In E.E. v. Kijakazi, Judge Spero granted E.E.’s summary-judgment motion, denied the Commissioner’s, and remanded the disability-benefits decision for further proceedings.
E.E. and the Commissioner of Social Security. E.E.’s challenge succeeded, but the court remanded the case for further administrative proceedings rather than awarding benefits.
What happened
In E.E. v. Kijakazi, E.E. challenged the Social Security Administration’s decision that she was not disabled and could perform her past work. The administrative law judge relied in part on E.E.’s travel, exercise, and selected medical records while rejecting opinions from her treating doctor, Dr. Emily Richie.
The court found that the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate whether Dr. Richie’s opinions were supported by medical evidence and consistent with the full record. The judge also failed to adequately address evidence showing E.E.’s pain and physical limitations, including evidence related to her travel and exercise.
Judge Spero granted E.E.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. The order did not award E.E. disability benefits.
The detailed version
- E.E. v. Kijakazi · No. 3:21-cv-02104
- Joseph Spero
- July 26, 2022
Background
E.E. applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging that her disability began on October 7, 2016. The Social Security Administration denied her application and denied it again on reconsideration. After a January 30, 2020 hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an unfavorable decision on April 7, 2020.
The ALJ found that E.E. had severe impairments, including coronary artery disease after bypass surgery, insulin-dependent diabetes, asthma, hypertension, and anemia. The ALJ nevertheless found that E.E. had the residual functional capacity (RFC)—the most she could still do despite her limitations—to perform light work. The ALJ concluded that she could perform her past work as an administrative assistant and secretary and was therefore not disabled.
E.E. moved for summary judgment, arguing that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinions of her treating physician, Dr. Emily Richie. The Commissioner moved for summary judgment asking the court to affirm the ALJ’s decision. E.E. sought further administrative proceedings rather than an immediate award of benefits.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed whether the ALJ’s decision was based on legal error or was unsupported by substantial evidence. Because E.E.’s application was filed after March 27, 2017, the newer Social Security regulations governed the evaluation of medical opinions. Those regulations do not automatically give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight. Instead, the ALJ must consider factors including supportability and consistency, which the regulations identify as the most important factors, and must explain how those factors were considered.
The court held that the ALJ improperly evaluated Dr. Richie’s opinions. Dr. Richie had assessed substantial limitations, including that E.E. could walk, stand, or sit for less than one hour per day, would need multiple unscheduled breaks, could lift less than ten pounds occasionally, and would miss more than four workdays per month. Dr. Richie also wrote in 2020 that E.E. needed help while traveling because of weakness, difficulty handling luggage and walking through airports, and the risk of abnormal blood sugar.
The ALJ said these opinions were not supported by the medical record and were inconsistent with E.E.’s travel and exercise. The court found that the ALJ did not adequately examine medical evidence available to Dr. Richie that could support her opinions, including reports of pain, dizziness, shortness of breath, limited exercise tolerance, and difficulty walking more than approximately two blocks. The court also found that the ALJ cited selected medical visits while failing to address other evidence that pointed toward continuing limitations.
The court separately held that the ALJ did not properly evaluate the opinions of state agency physicians. Although the ALJ found those opinions persuasive, the ALJ did not adequately address their supportability or identify specific evidence supporting their consistency with the record.
The court also found that the ALJ did not explain how E.E.’s travel or exercise was inconsistent with Dr. Richie’s opinions. The ALJ relied on travel and one example of light exercise but did not address evidence that E.E. required assistance while traveling and continued to report pain and limited walking ability. The court did not decide whether travel and exercise could ever be sufficient to discredit parts of a medical opinion; it held that this ALJ had not fully addressed the relevant evidence.
Disposition
The court held that the ALJ misapplied the Social Security regulations when evaluating Dr. Richie’s opinions and the state agency physicians’ opinions. It also held that the ALJ failed to address relevant evidence concerning E.E.’s travel and exercise. These errors warranted remand.
Judge Joseph C. Spero granted E.E.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. The court did not award benefits or decide that E.E. was disabled.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.