Emily S. v. Kijakazi

Background

Emily S. sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. After an earlier voluntary remand and a second administrative hearing, the administrative law judge issued another unfavorable decision on December 6, 2021. The administrative law judge found that Emily S. had severe impairments including fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease, migraine headaches, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The administrative law judge determined that she could not perform her past work but could perform jobs such as line attendant, product sorter, or conveyer tender.

Both parties moved for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record. Emily S. challenged the evaluation of her testimony, medical opinions, and statements from two third-party witnesses.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated Emily S.’s pain and symptom testimony. Because the administrative law judge found that her impairments could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms and found no evidence of malingering, the administrative law judge had to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting her testimony. The court found that the explanations were not sufficiently clear, convincing, or specific.

The court particularly criticized the administrative law judge’s reliance on short periods of improvement in Emily S.’s mental-health symptoms. The court explained that mental-health symptoms can vary over time and that isolated improvement does not necessarily show an ability to maintain competitive employment. The court also found that the administrative law judge relied too generally on activities such as reading, driving, traveling, preparing food, doing yoga, and caring for a foster child without adequately explaining how those activities conflicted with the claimed limitations. The court further found that the administrative law judge did not clearly identify which parts of Emily S.’s testimony were accepted or rejected, including her testimony about migraine triggers.

The court also found errors in the treatment of medical opinions. Under the applicable regulations, the administrative law judge had to expressly address the supportability and consistency of medical opinions. The court concluded that the administrative law judge mischaracterized or took out of context statements from Abby Middleton, LCSW, and Dr. Thurston. The court also found that the administrative law judge’s explanation for crediting state-agency psychological consultants was inadequate and appeared inconsistent with the residual functional capacity finding allowing frequent workplace interactions despite moderate limitations in several interaction-related abilities.

Finally, the court ruled that the administrative law judge improperly discounted statements from Rebecca S. and Linda McSweeney because they were not acceptable medical sources. The court explained that competent testimony from nonmedical witnesses must still be considered and discussed. Because the reasons used to reject Emily S.’s testimony were inadequate, merely referring to those reasons was also insufficient to reject the third-party statements.

Disposition

Judge Robert Illman granted Emily S.’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The case was remanded for further proceedings. The administrative law judge was ordered to consider the issues identified in the court’s order and to clearly address them in any ensuing decision. The court did not award benefits or determine that Emily S. is disabled; it required the agency to conduct further proceedings consistent with the order.