Lilita H. v. Kijakazi

Background

Lilita H. sought disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. She alleged that she became unable to work because of post-traumatic stress disorder, difficulty focusing, stress, anxiety, depression, and chronic pain. The Social Security Administration denied her applications initially and on reconsideration.

On September 29, 2020, an administrative law judge denied the applications. The administrative law judge found that Lilita H. had severe generalized anxiety disorder, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and somatic symptom disorder, but that her impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The judge determined that she could perform work at all exertional levels, subject to limits involving simple and routine tasks, few workplace changes, limited public interaction, low-stress work, and superficial interaction with supervisors and coworkers. Although she could not perform her past relevant work, the judge found that she could perform other jobs, including janitor, kitchen helper, and auto detailer. The Appeals Council denied review.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the district court to decide whether the administrative law judge’s decision was legally adequate and supported by substantial evidence.

Subjective Symptom Testimony

The court held that the administrative law judge failed to provide the specific, clear, and convincing reasons required for rejecting Lilita H.’s testimony about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. The court found that the administrative law judge relied on a boilerplate statement that her testimony was not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence, followed by summaries of the record, without identifying the particular testimony and evidence that conflicted.

The court also found problems with the administrative law judge’s reliance on treatment history, reported improvement, daily activities, financial management, and Lilita H.’s work in 2018. The administrative law judge did not adequately consider that symptoms may improve and worsen over time, did not address explanations for inconsistent mental-health treatment—including difficulty following through, lack of transportation, depression, and homelessness—and did not explain how Lilita H.’s limited household activities conflicted with her testimony. The court also noted that she testified that she was terminated from her 2018 job after four months because of problems interacting with the public and coworkers.

Medical Opinion Evidence

The court concluded that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated opinions from consultative examiners Dr. Martin and Dr. Wiebe. Both examiners identified marked limitations in completing a normal workday or workweek without interruptions caused by psychiatric symptoms. Dr. Wiebe also identified marked limitations involving attention, concentration, pace, interaction with others, appropriate behavior, and following detailed instructions.

The court found that the administrative law judge did not identify specific daily activities that conflicted with Dr. Martin’s opinion and improperly relied on Lilita H.’s 2018 work without adequately considering the circumstances of that employment. As to Dr. Wiebe, the court found that the cited evaluations did not support the administrative law judge’s finding that Lilita H. had greater cognitive ability or no more than moderate limitations in interacting with others. The administrative law judge also selectively relied on records describing Lilita H. as friendly or cooperative while overlooking records describing severe depression, anxiety, agitation, and difficulty dealing with providers and staff.

The court further held that the administrative law judge failed to consider the full record when finding the opinions of non-examining medical consultants Dr. Economoe and Dr. Constantine persuasive. In particular, the judge did not adequately address contradictory opinions from physicians who had examined Lilita H. The court also directed the administrative law judge on remand to consider information from Layla Uribe and Kim Ard-Elutio as explanations for Lilita H.’s inconsistent mental-health care.

Other Issues and Disposition

Because the evaluation of the medical evidence and subjective symptom testimony was unsupported by substantial evidence, the court found that the errors were not harmless. The court therefore did not reach Lilita H.’s additional arguments concerning the determination of her severe impairments, whether her conditions met or equaled a listed impairment, or her residual functional capacity, meaning the most work she could perform despite her limitations.

The court declined to order an immediate award of benefits because the record was not fully developed and factual issues remained. Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley granted Lilita H.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 21 and 33.