Anthony M. W. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Robert Illman
- 1:21-cv-08018
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In Anthony M. W. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Illman granted summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded for reevaluation.
Anthony M. W.’s disability-benefits claim was remanded to the Social Security Administration for further evaluation; the court did not order benefits.
What happened
In Anthony M. W. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Anthony M. W. asked the court to review an administrative law judge’s decision denying his disability-benefits application. He argued that the judge improperly evaluated chiropractor Gerald F. Jackson’s medical opinion.
The court agreed that the administrative law judge did not properly explain why Jackson’s opinion was unpersuasive. The court granted Anthony M. W.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and sent the case back for further evaluation. The court required a new assessment of the opinion and additional information from Jackson about whether recent surgery affected his assessment.
Judge Illman ruled that the record needed further development, so the court did not accept Jackson’s opinion as conclusively true or order benefits. The administrative law judge must reconsider the medical evidence and explain the decision under the governing regulations.
The detailed version
- Anthony M. W. v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-08018
- Robert Illman
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
Anthony M. W. sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying his application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The administrative law judge found that he was not disabled, and the Social Security Appeals Council declined review.
The administrative law judge found bilateral epicondylitis and lumbar disc protrusion to be severe impairments, while finding hypertension, prediabetes, and hyperlipidemia non-severe. The judge determined that Anthony M. W. could not perform his past work as a stock clerk or heavy truck driver, but could perform work as an office helper, cashier, or inspector.
Anthony M. W. raised one claim: that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the medical opinion of Gerald F. Jackson, D.C. Jackson had treated him for many years and gave an assessment stating that his impairments significantly limited his ability to work, including his ability to sit, stand, walk, lift, and maintain a regular work schedule.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the Social Security Act’s substantial-evidence standard. Under that standard, a court reviews the administrative record as a whole and may set aside the agency’s decision when it rests on legal error or is not adequately supported by relevant evidence.
The court held that the administrative law judge failed to comply with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c. That regulation requires an administrative law judge to evaluate all medical opinions, including opinions from sources who are not classified as acceptable medical sources. The regulation specifically requires the judge to address the opinion’s supportability and consistency.
The administrative law judge gave three main reasons for finding Jackson’s opinion “not persuasive”: Jackson was not an acceptable medical source; the opinion was given while Anthony M. W. was recovering from surgery; and the opinion was supposedly inconsistent with opinions from Dr. Amon and Dr. Williams.
The Commissioner conceded that relying on Jackson’s status as a non-acceptable medical source was improper. The court explained that Jackson was a licensed chiropractor and therefore a medical source whose opinion had to be evaluated under the regulation, even though chiropractors are not listed as acceptable medical sources.
The court also rejected the other stated reasons as inadequate. Merely noting that Jackson gave his opinion after surgery did not explain whether or how that timing affected the opinion’s supportability or consistency. The court further found it unclear whether the administrative law judge intended to say that Jackson’s opinion conflicted with the opinions of Dr. Amon and Dr. Williams. The decision did not explain the alleged inconsistency.
The court also found that the administrative law judge appeared to rely on isolated references to improvement, including statements that Anthony M. W.’s shoulder was functional and comfortable, that he had no major complaints, and that he could perform routine activities such as driving, cleaning, and doing laundry. The court stated that the administrative law judge could not select isolated portions of the record while ignoring evidence of continuing pain and limitations. It also stated that routine daily activities are not necessarily comparable to the demands of a workplace, and the administrative law judge needed to explain that connection.
Disposition
The court ordered the administrative law judge to reconsider Jackson’s opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2), expressly address supportability and consistency, and provide explanations supported by substantial evidence. The court also ordered the administrative law judge to send questionnaires to Jackson, if needed, to clarify whether the post-surgery status affected his opinion or whether the limitations existed before and continued after the opinion.
The court declined to accept Jackson’s opinion as conclusively true because the record required further development. It granted Anthony M. W.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for further evaluation consistent with the order. The opinion did not order an award of benefits.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.