Jennifer K. v. Kijakazi

Background

Jennifer K. sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying her application for disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. She applied in March 2018 and alleged that her disability began on December 25, 2011. After two administrative hearings, the administrative law judge found on June 29, 2021, that she was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review in April 2022.

The administrative law judge found that Jennifer K. had severe chronic fatigue syndrome, somatic symptom disorder, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. The judge found other conditions non-severe or not medically determinable, including chronic migraines and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. The judge determined that Jennifer K. could perform medium-level work with additional physical and mental restrictions and could work as an office helper, routing clerk, or small products assembler.

Jennifer K. moved for summary judgment, asking the court to set aside the nondisability decision and remand for calculation of benefits. The government moved for remand for further administrative proceedings. The government conceded that the administrative law judge had erred in evaluating Jennifer K.’s pain and symptom testimony but argued that the record should be developed further rather than requiring an immediate award of benefits.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the record was not fully developed and that further administrative proceedings would serve a useful purpose. It agreed that the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Jennifer K.’s pain and symptom testimony was deficient in some respects. The same reasoning applied to the rejection of testimony from Jennifer K.’s mother, Teresa K.

The court did not decide that Jennifer K. was entitled to benefits. It explained that the evidence concerning chronic fatigue syndrome, the medical opinions, and Jennifer K.’s reported limitations was conflicting or unclear. Although chronic fatigue syndrome can be diagnosed based on a patient’s reported symptoms after other causes are ruled out, that principle did not automatically require the administrative law judge to accept all of Jennifer K.’s symptom testimony.

The court also found that further proceedings were needed regarding the disability-listing analysis. It stated that the medical evidence did not clearly establish the marked or extreme limitations Jennifer K. argued were present. The court directed that the administrative law judge could seek clarification from Dr. Bonilla or obtain another opinion that more clearly described Jennifer K.’s limitations.

The court further directed clarification of the opinions of Dr. DeSousa, Dr. McMillan, and Dr. Bonilla. For Dr. DeSousa, it was unclear how his conclusion that Jennifer K. did not meet the criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome affected the rest of his opinion. Dr. McMillan may not have reviewed the full extent of Jennifer K.’s medical records, so the administrative law judge was directed to provide the relevant records and seek clarification. Dr. Bonilla’s opinions also needed more detail about the specific limitations associated with chronic fatigue syndrome and the support for those limitations.

Disposition

The court denied Jennifer K.’s motion, granted the government’s motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order. The administrative law judge was ordered to obtain questionnaires or testimony from the identified medical sources, or engage an additional medical expert; reevaluate Jennifer K.’s pain and symptom testimony under the applicable Social Security regulations and agency ruling; and conduct further proceedings.