Jenett S. v. Kijakazi

Background

Jenett S. sought disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. She alleged disability beginning October 23, 2017, based on degenerative disc disease, spondylosis, depression, anxiety, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the claim, and the Appeals Council declined review.

The ALJ found that Jenett S. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity, had several severe impairments, and could not perform her past relevant work. The ALJ determined that she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC)—her ability to work despite her impairments—to perform light work with physical, environmental, and mental limitations. At the final step of the disability analysis, the ALJ found that she could perform jobs such as non-postal mail clerk, marker, and photocopying machine operator.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide whether the Commissioner’s final decision was supported by the law and the evidence.

Medical Opinion Evidence

The court held that the ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of Jenett S.’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Julian Lagoy. Dr. Lagoy opined in January and February 2021 that Jenett S. could not return to her past work or perform other work because of severe depression and anxiety. He identified diagnoses and extreme limitations involving concentration, attendance, following instructions, interacting with others, maintaining a routine, and completing a normal workday or workweek. He also concluded that she would miss work more than four days per month.

The ALJ found Dr. Lagoy’s opinion unpersuasive because it was supposedly inconsistent with generally normal examinations and conservative treatment, and because it was issued after the relevant insured period. The court rejected both reasons. It found that the ALJ had overlooked evidence in the same medical records showing continuing anxiety, depression, poor concentration, ADHD, abnormal mood or affect, ongoing diagnoses, and increased or adjusted medication. The court also stated that the ALJ did not explain how the treatment was conservative.

The court further held that the ALJ could not disregard Dr. Lagoy’s opinion merely because it was issued after the date last insured. The opinion addressed Jenett S.’s earlier mental condition and identified an onset date within the relevant period. The court noted that medical opinions issued after the insured period may still be relevant to assessing disability during that period. The court also declined to consider additional reasons offered by the Commissioner because the ALJ had not relied on those reasons in the decision.

Subjective Symptom Testimony

The court also held that the ALJ improperly rejected Jenett S.’s testimony about the intensity and effects of her symptoms. The ALJ acknowledged that her impairments could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms and did not find evidence of malingering. The ALJ therefore needed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting her testimony.

The court found that the ALJ instead used conclusory language and did not identify specific inconsistencies between the testimony and the record. The ALJ’s references to the course of treatment, conservative treatment, and Jenett S.’s work history did not satisfy the required standard. The court also found that the ALJ overlooked her testimony that intermittent pain, depression, and anxiety attacks prevented her from working. The Commissioner’s alternative explanation based on income after the alleged onset date could not be considered because it was not the reasoning the ALJ gave.

Other Issues and Remand

Because the RFC assessment was unsupported, the court did not decide Jenett S.’s additional arguments about the vocational expert’s testimony or the ALJ’s step-five findings. The court concluded that the errors were not harmless because a properly evaluated record could lead to a different RFC and disability determination.

Jenett S. requested either an award of benefits or further proceedings. The court chose further proceedings because the record was not fully developed, unresolved issues remained, and it was not clear that the ALJ would be required to find her disabled even if the improperly discounted evidence were credited. The court stated that further proceedings should address the conflicting medical opinions and the other evidence concerning work-related limitations.

Disposition

The court granted Jenett S.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the order. The court denied Jenett S.’s request to have the case assigned to a different ALJ because she had not shown bias, substantial delay, or another reason for disqualification. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the order.