Evelyn H. v. Kijakazi

Background

Evelyn H. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. She alleged disability beginning November 29, 2012, and took the position that her period of disability ended December 5, 2017. The administrative law judge (ALJ) ultimately found that she was not disabled from November 29, 2012 through June 30, 2015, her date last insured. The ALJ found that she could perform her past relevant work as a public relations representative.

After the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council denied review, Evelyn H. asked the district court to review the decision. She moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule based on the administrative record when there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment asking the court to affirm the agency’s decision.

Mental impairments

The ALJ found that Evelyn H.’s major depressive disorder and anxiety were not medically determinable impairments. The court disagreed with that finding, concluding that it was not supported by substantial evidence. The record included a November 2012 diagnosis of postpartum depression, observations of depressed mood and tearful affect, reports of anxiety and depression, prescriptions for antidepressants, treatment and therapy references, and later treatment by Maria T. Arieta, Psy.D., who diagnosed recurrent major depressive disorder.

The court explained that the ALJ addressed little of this evidence and relied on the absence of mental-status examinations during the relevant period. The court concluded that the evidence could have affected the disability analysis at several stages, including the assessment of the severity of mental impairments, Evelyn H.’s residual functional capacity, the evaluation of her past work, and the vocational expert’s testimony. Because the error could have affected the ultimate disability determination, the court found that it was not harmless.

Evaluation of testimony

The court also found that the ALJ erred in evaluating Evelyn H.’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. The ALJ relied on activities such as preparing simple meals, caring for children, doing light household chores, driving, shopping, and managing finances. But the court found that the ALJ selected examples without adequately considering evidence that her husband and relatives helped care for the children and home, that she could perform some tasks only on good days, and that she reported being unable to do anything on bad days.

The court also found that the ALJ did not connect specific testimony to particular medical evidence or explain which testimony was being rejected and why. A general statement that the objective medical evidence did not support the allegations was insufficient.

Disposition

The court did not reach Evelyn H.’s remaining challenges because the errors concerning mental impairments and symptom testimony may have affected the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical-opinion evidence, reliance on the vocational expert, and finding that Evelyn H. could perform past relevant work.

Judge Donna Ryu granted Evelyn H.’s motion for summary judgment in part, because the court did not reach all of her arguments. The court denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.