F.B. v. Kijakazi

Background

F.B. applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging that she became unable to work on November 15, 2013. Her insured status required her to establish disability by June 30, 2015. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the claim, and the Appeals Council declined further review. F.B. then sought review in the district court.

The record described longstanding bipolar disorder with psychotic or schizoaffective features, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and repeated psychiatric hospitalizations. During and after the relevant period, F.B. experienced symptoms including severe depression, anger, panic attacks, suicidal thoughts, hallucinations, paranoia, and manic episodes.

The ALJ found at step two that F.B. had severe bipolar disorder and anxiety. At step three, the ALJ found that her impairments did not meet or equal Listings 12.04 or 12.06 because she had moderate limitations in interacting with others, concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace, and adapting or managing herself, plus a mild limitation in understanding, remembering, or applying information. At step four, the ALJ found that F.B. could perform work at all physical exertional levels if limited to simple, routine tasks and occasional contact with the public, supervisors, and coworkers. At step five, the ALJ found that other jobs existed that F.B. could perform.

Medical opinions and the ALJ’s analysis

State agency consultant Dr. Collado opined in 2017 that F.B. had moderate limitations in three functional areas and no disability during the relevant period. In 2020, medical expert Dr. George Bell reviewed the record and testified that F.B. had severe bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder during the relevant period. He concluded that she met Listings 12.04 and 12.06 and had marked limitations in interacting with others and in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace.

F.B.’s treating psychologist, Dr. Margaret Bailey, also described substantial mental limitations, although the ALJ rejected that opinion as unrelated to the relevant period. The court explained that medical evidence created after the date last insured can still be relevant when it concerns the same continuing medical condition. The court found that F.B.’s later records described chronic impairments related to those documented during the relevant period.

The court held that the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting Dr. Bell’s opinion and adopting Dr. Collado’s opinion were not supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the ALJ mischaracterized Dr. Bell’s testimony as equivocal, even though Dr. Bell had clearly identified two marked limitations based on records from the relevant period. The court also found that the ALJ selectively relied on routine observations—such as being cooperative, oriented, or free of suicidal thoughts during particular examinations—without adequately considering that many observations occurred during or shortly after psychiatric hospitalizations and that F.B.’s symptoms waxed and waned.

Listings and disability finding

The court concluded that the ALJ’s findings about F.B.’s ability to interact with others and to concentrate, persist, or maintain pace were not supported by substantial evidence. The court credited Dr. Bell’s assessment that F.B. had marked limitations in both areas. Under the applicable rules, an extreme limitation in one area or marked limitations in two areas satisfies the relevant mental-disorder listings. The court therefore concluded that F.B. met Listings 12.04 and 12.06 and was disabled at step three.

Because the court resolved the case based on the errors at the medical-opinion and listings stages, it did not reach F.B.’s separate challenge to the ALJ’s step-five finding about other available jobs.

Remedy and disposition

The court applied the “credit-as-true” rule, a doctrine that can require an immediate award of benefits when the ALJ rejected evidence for legally insufficient reasons, no unresolved issues require further administrative proceedings, and the record leaves no serious doubt that the claimant is disabled. The court found that all three conditions were satisfied. It held that the extensive record, including Dr. Bell’s testimony and the longitudinal medical evidence, established disability and did not require additional fact-finding.

The court granted F.B.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, reversed the Commissioner’s final decision that F.B. was not disabled, and remanded for an immediate calculation and award of benefits. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.