K.Y. v. Kijakazi

Background

K.Y. sought judicial review of a Social Security disability decision. The court reviewed the administrative law judge’s decision and the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, which ask the court to decide whether the administrative decision should stand based on the record.

The court first noted that the Commissioner’s brief did not adequately address many issues discussed in the ruling, and that no attorney for the Commissioner appeared at the hearing on the appeal. The court stated that it would remand the matter for that reason alone. It also identified several errors by the administrative law judge.

Reasons for Remand

The administrative law judge failed to fully develop the record. The judge relied partly on K.Y.’s adult function report when assessing her daily activities, even though K.Y. left significant portions of the report unanswered. For example, when asked about household chores, K.Y. wrote “n/a (no house),” and when asked about changes in hobbies and interests, she again wrote “n/a.” The opinion states that K.Y. is homeless and that the administrative law judge did not ask her to explain these limited answers at the hearing.

The court also described problems with the hearing. K.Y. said she was unsure what the exhibits were and later stated that she felt she was missing information. The administrative law judge moved on after saying K.Y. had access to the exhibits. K.Y. participated remotely, and because of her selective mutism, a teleinterpreter read her typed statements into the record. The court found that K.Y. appeared confused about the process and that the decision did not address her apparent confusion or the administrative law judge’s inability to understand some of her statements.

The court further held that the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate K.Y.’s medical records. In assessing K.Y.’s ability to understand, remember, and apply information, the judge discounted variable memory scores because poor verbal memory might have been related to a language disorder rather than an amnestic disorder. The court found that the judge did not explain why the source of the limitation mattered instead of considering its effect on K.Y.’s ability to work. The court stated that the medical report suggested K.Y.’s language and psychological disorders affected her memory in a way that made her reported work difficulties understandable.

Finally, the administrative law judge did not resolve important ambiguities concerning K.Y.’s work history. K.Y. testified that she had worked for one month, and earnings records showed only $35 in one quarter, but a later report stated that she had been hired in March 2020. The court said the administrative law judge needed to resolve this conflict and appeared to have overlooked evidence indicating that K.Y. stopped working soon after the hearing. The court was not in a position to resolve the issue itself.

Ruling

Judge Vince Chhabria granted K.Y.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. The court stated that, on remand, the administrative law judge may reopen the administrative record and accept additional evidence as appropriate.