B.D. v. Kijakazi

Background

B.D. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability benefits. The administrative law judge found that B.D. had several severe impairments, including obesity, substance-induced mood disorder, cannabis abuse, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, migraines, sleep apnea, pelvic organ prolapse, and hip conditions. The judge determined that B.D. had no past relevant work and that no jobs were available under the residual functional capacity (RFC) assessed while accounting for her substance use.

The judge nevertheless found that B.D. would be able to perform a significant number of jobs if she stopped using cannabis and opiates. In that alternative RFC, the judge removed limitations for missing two workdays per month and being off task for 10 percent of the workday. A vocational expert testified that either of those limitations would eliminate available work.

B.D. moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the administrative law judge failed to properly evaluate whether her substance use was material to her disability. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking affirmance of the administrative decision.

Court’s analysis

The court focused on Social Security Ruling 13-2p, the agency rule governing when drug or alcohol use is material to disability. For a claimant with a mental disorder existing alongside substance use, the rule requires evidence in the record establishing that the claimant would not be disabled without the substance use. The rule does not allow adjudicators to rely only on medical expertise and the nature of the mental disorder.

The court found that the administrative law judge appeared to rely on B.D.’s substance use and drug-seeking behavior, along with testimony from Dr. Miriam Sherman that B.D.’s functioning would improve without substance use. The court concluded that this analysis did not satisfy Social Security Ruling 13-2p. In particular, the judge identified no evidence supporting the conclusion that B.D.’s reduced concentration and resulting time-off-task limitation would disappear if she stopped using opiates. The court noted that the vocational expert had testified that this limitation, combined with the other RFC restrictions, would leave no available work.

The court also noted that B.D. raised other challenges to the administrative decision, including arguments about the severity of certain impairments and the treatment of medical opinions. Because the substance-use error was enough to require a remand, the court did not decide those arguments. The court also declined to consider B.D.’s request for an immediate award of benefits because she raised that request for the first time in her reply brief after requesting further proceedings in her opening motion.

Disposition

The court held that the Commissioner erred by failing to correctly apply Social Security Ruling 13-2p when evaluating the significance of B.D.’s substance use. It granted B.D.’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.