Lauren M. v. Kijakazi

Background

Lauren M. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her claim for benefits based on mental impairments, including post-traumatic stress disorder, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and major depressive disorder. On February 14, 2023, the court granted Lauren M.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and requested supplemental briefing about the proper scope of the remand.

Remand question

Lauren M. had asked for a remand for further proceedings and later requested an award of benefits and/or further proceedings. The court considered whether the record supported an immediate benefits award under the “credit-as-true” rule, which can require an award when the record is fully developed, the administrative law judge lacked legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, and crediting that evidence would require a finding of disability.

The administrative law judge’s analysis had stopped at step two of the disability review process. The court explained that finding a severe impairment at step two generally requires the administrative law judge to continue to the next steps; it does not itself establish that the claimant is disabled. The administrative law judge would still need to assess the degree of functional limitation from the mental impairment before determining whether it met or equaled a listed impairment. Because the record needed further development, the court could not conclude that crediting the improperly rejected evidence would require a finding of disability at step three or elsewhere in the process.

Court’s ruling

The court also expressed concern that the administrative law judge had again failed to adequately address issues involved in a prior related proceeding, including Dr. Dixit’s opinion and the VA’s finding of 100 percent total and permanent disability. The court stated that the administrative law judge’s reasons were again unsupported by substantial evidence, but that this conduct did not itself justify an immediate benefits award.

The court remanded the case with instructions to conduct further proceedings consistent with its February 14, 2023 order. It did not order an immediate award of benefits. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 22 and 23, and the court stated that it would enter a separate judgment. Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley signed the order.