Donald M. v. Kijakazi

Background

Donald M. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. He alleged that his disabilities began on August 1, 2019. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Hortensia Haaversen denied the claim on March 24, 2021. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative law judge found that Donald M. had severe impairments of hypertension and type 2 diabetes with peripheral neuropathy. The judge found that he could perform light work, with specified lifting limits, and could perform his past relevant work as a retail manager. The judge therefore found him not disabled.

Issues and Arguments

Donald M. argued that the administrative law judge erred by finding his diarrhea non-severe, by assigning a residual functional capacity that did not account for frequent bathroom breaks, and by improperly evaluating his symptom testimony. He requested either an immediate award of benefits or further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge properly evaluated these matters and asked the court to affirm the decision.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge failed to provide the specific, clear, and convincing reasons required to reject Donald M.’s symptom testimony. The judge found that Donald M.’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause his alleged symptoms and cited no evidence of malingering. But the judge generally stated that the testimony was not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence without identifying which testimony was rejected and why.

The court also found that the one specific reason the administrative law judge gave was not clear and convincing. The judge treated as inconsistent Donald M.’s report that he was fired in June 2018 for failing to meet sales requirements and a medical record stating that he stopped working because of leg pain. The court concluded that these statements could be reconciled: Donald M. could have lost his job for poor sales performance and later been unable to seek new work because of worsening impairments. The court also noted medical records documenting palpitations, lightheadedness, foot neuropathy, and recurrent diarrhea as reasons he could not look for work.

The court further held that the administrative law judge’s assessment of Donald M.’s diarrhea was not supported by substantial evidence. The judge characterized the diarrhea as a symptom of uncertain cause and found that it had been treated as a chronic condition only since late 2020. But Donald M. testified that the diarrhea began before August 2019, and the record documented repeated episodes, hospitalization, and periods involving many bowel movements. Because the court found that the judge improperly discounted his testimony and misstated the duration of the diarrhea, the court required reconsideration of whether the diarrhea was a severe impairment.

Remedy and Disposition

The court declined to order immediate payment of benefits because unresolved issues remained concerning Donald M.’s testimony, residual functional capacity, and the work he could perform. It remanded the case for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the administrative law judge must reconsider the severity of the diarrhea, reevaluate the symptom testimony using legally sufficient reasons if rejecting it, revisit the residual functional capacity, and address the remaining steps of the disability inquiry as appropriate.

Judge Susan Illston granted Donald M.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the action for further administrative proceedings.