D.W. v. Kijakazi

Background

D.W. applied for Title II disability insurance benefits on or about August 26, 2019. An administrative law judge denied the application on May 19, 2021. The administrative law judge found that D.W. had severe impairments including degenerative disc disease, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and sleep apnea. The judge found that D.W. could perform sedentary work with additional limitations and could not return to past work as an administrative clerk, but could perform past work as a registration clerk. Based on that finding, the administrative law judge concluded that D.W. was not disabled and did not continue to the next step of considering whether D.W. could perform other jobs.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court reviewed the Commissioner’s decision under the substantial-evidence standard, which asks whether the administrative record contains enough relevant evidence to support the agency’s factual findings, and whether the agency applied the correct legal standards.

Past Relevant Work

The court held that the administrative law judge did not make the specific findings required to support the step-four conclusion that D.W. could perform past relevant work as an admitting registration clerk or registration clerk. The decision did not clearly identify which of D.W.’s prior jobs was the registration-clerk position. The vocational expert had testified that D.W. performed registration-clerk work at more than one place, but the administrative law judge did not identify the particular job being evaluated.

The court also found that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain the physical and mental demands of the identified position or how those demands related to D.W.’s residual functional capacity. Residual functional capacity means what a person can still do despite physical or mental limitations. Because the administrative law judge ended the disability analysis at step four, the error was not harmless. The court remanded for further evaluation of D.W.’s past relevant work.

Residual Functional Capacity and Obesity

The court rejected D.W.’s challenge to the administrative law judge’s consideration of obesity. The administrative law judge found obesity to be a severe impairment and stated that obesity had been considered in assessing D.W.’s residual functional capacity. The decision limited D.W. to sedentary work with additional postural restrictions and referred to D.W.’s elevated body mass index and other evidence. The court concluded that D.W. had not identified an obesity-related functional limitation that the administrative law judge failed to consider.

Mental Impairments

The court held that the administrative law judge failed to address D.W.’s claimed mental impairments. Social Security regulations require a special psychiatric review technique when a claimant presents a colorable claim of mental impairment. A colorable claim is one that is not wholly insubstantial, immaterial, or frivolous.

The record contained references to depression and anxiety, D.W.’s testimony that D.W. was becoming depressed and sad, and a disability report referring to physical and mental conditions. Although a state agency psychological consultant concluded that there was no medically determinable mental impairment, the administrative law judge did not acknowledge D.W.’s mental-impairment claim or explain why the special evaluation technique was unnecessary. The court therefore could not determine whether the decision on this issue was supported by substantial evidence. It remanded for evaluation of the claimed mental impairments and, if necessary, their effect on the residual functional capacity and later steps of the disability analysis.

Symptom Statements

The court found no independent error in the administrative law judge’s consideration of D.W.’s pain and other symptom statements. The administrative law judge discussed D.W.’s reported limitations and included restrictions in the residual functional capacity to account for limitations supported by the medical evidence.

However, because the mental-impairment analysis could affect the assessment of the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of D.W.’s combined impairments, the court directed the administrative law judge to reconsider D.W.’s symptom statements and, if necessary, the related residual functional capacity on remand.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part D.W.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not order an immediate award of benefits because it was not clear that the administrative law judge would be required to find D.W. disabled if all of the evidence were properly evaluated.