Juan J. v. Kijakazi

Background

Juan J. applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits, alleging that he became disabled on December 1, 2016. After two hearings, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits. The ALJ found that Juan J. had generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as severe impairments. The ALJ determined that Juan J. could perform medium work limited to simple and routine tasks, and relied on vocational-expert testimony to find that he could perform jobs existing in the national economy.

Juan J. moved for summary judgment seeking reversal of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s decision. The Commissioner cross-moved for summary judgment seeking affirmance.

Low-back pain

Juan J. argued that the ALJ wrongly found that his low-back pain was not a medically determinable impairment. The court disagreed. A medically determinable impairment must be established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source; a claimant’s symptom statements, a diagnosis, or a medical opinion alone cannot establish the impairment under the cited regulations.

The record showed repeated complaints of back pain, a 2010 emergency-room finding of an acute lower-back spasm, a 2017 observation of lumbar tenderness, and a referral for possible further evaluation. But the court found no objective medical testing or diagnosis establishing a back impairment. It therefore held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding on this issue.

Symptom and lay-witness testimony

Juan J. testified about panic attacks, avoiding crowds, auditory hallucinations, depressive episodes, and trauma. Nancy Parker, his girlfriend, testified about his pain attacks and mood swings. The ALJ stated that Juan J.’s symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence, but did not identify which testimony was rejected, connect particular testimony to specific evidence, or provide specific and convincing reasons for discounting it.

The court held that this was legal error. Because the ALJ did not find that Juan J. was pretending to have symptoms, the ALJ was required to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting Juan J.’s testimony. The court also found that the ALJ failed to explain whether he accepted or rejected Parker’s testimony and failed to provide reasons specifically related to her testimony. The court could not rely on reasons offered later by the Commissioner that the ALJ had not given in the original decision.

Other issues and disposition

The court found that the testimony errors could have affected the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical examinations, the severity of Juan J.’s mental impairments, and the residual functional capacity assessment. Because the errors were not harmless, the court did not reach Juan J.’s remaining challenges to the medical-opinion evidence and residual functional capacity.

The court granted in part and denied in part Juan J.’s motion for summary judgment. It also granted in part and denied in part the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. The court remanded the matter to the agency for further proceedings. On remand, the ALJ must address Juan J.’s testimony, consider Parker’s testimony, and give specific reasons if either person’s testimony is rejected.