Alison M. C. v. Kijakazi

Background

Alison M. C. sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying her application for Title II disability insurance benefits. The Appeals Council declined to review that decision, making it the final decision of the Social Security Commissioner for purposes of district-court review. Alison M. C. died in 2018, after which her mother became the substituted party; the court continued to refer to the claimant as “Plaintiff.”

The administrative law judge found that Alison M. C. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity between her alleged onset date of August 1, 2012, and her date last insured, December 31, 2014. The administrative law judge found severe physical impairments but determined that her depression, anxiety, and antisocial personality disorder caused no more than minimal limitations at step two of the required five-step disability analysis. The administrative law judge therefore did not include mental limitations in the later analysis and found that Alison M. C. could perform certain jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Alison M. C. and the Commissioner each moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision based on the record when there is no need for a trial to resolve the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the administrative law judge improperly rejected the opinions of Dr. Julie A. Wolfert and Dr. Terralyn N. Renfro and failed to discuss Dr. Allen D. Bott’s opinion. Those opinions addressed depression, antisocial personality disorder, coping and social difficulties, concentration, persistence and pace, attendance, consistent work activity, and the need for supervision or assistance.

The court rejected the administrative law judge’s reasoning that Dr. Renfro’s opinion concerned a remote date last insured, because the opinion was issued before December 31, 2014. The court also found that the opinions of Drs. Wolfert, Renfro, and Bott were consistent with one another and with the record. In the court’s view, the administrative law judge improperly relied on isolated observations from unrelated physical treatment—such as appearing calm, having a normal affect, or being cooperative—to reject the considered opinions of the mental-health professionals.

The court applied the credit-as-true doctrine, meaning that it required the agency to accept the relevant medical opinions and limitations as true on remand. It found that Alison M. C.’s mental impairments had to be treated as severe at step two. The error was not harmless because the administrative law judge did not evaluate the mental impairments at step three or include their limitations in the residual functional capacity. Residual functional capacity means the most a person can still do despite her impairments.

Remedy and disposition

The court declined to order an immediate calculation and payment of benefits. It determined that the credited opinions did not establish conclusive disability and that further record development could be useful.

The case was remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the administrative law judge must restart the sequential analysis from step three, determine whether the combined mental and physical impairments meet or equal a listed impairment, and, if not, formulate a new residual functional capacity that includes the limitations described by Drs. Wolfert, Bott, and Renfro. The administrative law judge may also need additional information from those doctors and testimony from a vocational expert.

Judge Robert M. Illman granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.