Crystal L. v. Kijakazi

Background

Crystal L. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits, alleging disability beginning January 20, 2019. After her application was denied and an administrative law judge held a hearing, the administrative law judge issued a decision finding that she was not disabled. The Appeals Council declined review. Crystal L. sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

The administrative law judge found that Crystal L. had severe degenerative disc disease, asthma, and essential hypertension. The judge determined that she could perform light work with limited exposure to respiratory irritants and could return to past work as a quality control technician. The judge also found that, even if she could not perform that skilled work, she could perform other unskilled light work.

New Evidence

Crystal L. submitted additional medical records to the Appeals Council, including records from June through December 2021, an August 2021 lumbar magnetic-resonance-imaging scan, and a December 2021 opinion from treating psychologist Kiere Eichelberger, Ph.D. The court interpreted the Appeals Council’s statement that the evidence did not show a reasonable probability of changing the outcome as meaning that the Council considered the evidence. The court therefore considered the additional evidence as part of the administrative record.

Subjective Symptoms

The court found that the additional evidence called into question the administrative law judge’s reasons for discounting Crystal L.’s testimony about back pain. The judge had relied on minimal treatment and an April 2021 X-ray showing mild degenerative changes. But the later MRI showed additional spinal abnormalities, and the treatment that followed included injections and physical therapy. The court also found that Crystal L.’s weekly laundry chore, which involved limited time standing and resulted in increased pain and swelling, was not a clear and convincing reason to discount her testimony.

The court reached similar conclusions about Crystal L.’s mental-health symptoms. Although the administrative law judge relied on generally normal mental-status examinations, mild questionnaire scores, and improvement with treatment, later records showed a depressed or anxious mood, cognitive difficulties, and moderate anxiety. The court also found that the record suggested improvement was not consistent and may have been affected by circumstances outside the workplace.

As to leg swelling, the administrative law judge concluded that the condition did not meet the required duration and had improved. New evidence documented leg swelling in July 2021 that improved with daily medication. The court found that this evidence undermined the conclusion that the swelling had resolved and that the judge had not otherwise given clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Crystal L.’s testimony.

Residual Functional Capacity and Vocational Testimony

Residual functional capacity means the most a person can still do despite physical and mental limitations. The court found that the additional evidence affected the administrative law judge’s residual-functional-capacity assessment because the judge had not included Crystal L.’s leg swelling and had relied on an assessment of only mild mental limitations.

The court gave Dr. Eichelberger’s opinion less weight because it was issued more than four months after the administrative law judge’s decision and lacked detail, but it did not treat the opinion as having no value. The opinion covered the period from January 2019 through August 2021 and stated that Crystal L. could not sustain competitive work and could miss work five or more times per month. Because the opinion directly addressed the vocational witness’s testimony and potentially conflicted with the other evidence, the court found that substantial evidence did not support the administrative law judge’s residual-functional-capacity assessment.

The court also remanded the issue concerning the vocational witness’s testimony because that testimony depended on the limitations the administrative law judge had assessed. On remand, the administrative law judge must reconsider the relevant limitations and ensure that the vocational testimony is properly supported.

Disposition

The court held that further administrative proceedings, rather than immediate payment of benefits, were appropriate. The administrative law judge had not considered pertinent evidence, and the record did not clearly establish that a proper evaluation would require a finding that Crystal L. was disabled.

The court granted Crystal L.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, reversed the administrative law judge’s decision, and remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. The court stated that the clerk would terminate the case after entry of a separate judgment.