A.Z. v. Kijakazi

Background

A.Z. sued the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration after an administrative law judge denied her application for disability benefits. A.Z. alleged that physical and mental impairments had prevented her from working for more than one year. The administrative law judge held a hearing in October 2020 and issued an unfavorable decision in December 2020.

The administrative law judge found that A.Z. did not have a “severe” medically determinable impairment, as required by Social Security regulations. The judge also found that A.Z.’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence. The Appeals Council denied review after receiving a report from Dr. Taylor Melville diagnosing A.Z. with unspecified neurocognitive disorder and describing substantial memory complaints.

Issues and Analysis

A.Z. argued that the administrative law judge failed to develop the record about her mental-health impairments, wrongly found that she had no severe impairment, and improperly rejected her statements about her symptoms.

The court rejected A.Z.’s argument that the administrative law judge failed to develop the record. The judge was not required to cite every piece of evidence, and the record showed that the judge considered mental-health records and relied on opinions from two state-agency medical experts. The court also found no evidence that additional questioning or a psychiatric examination was necessary because the administrative law judge did not find the record ambiguous or inadequate.

The court nevertheless held that the administrative law judge improperly discounted A.Z.’s testimony about her mental-health impairments. An administrative law judge must give specific and convincing reasons for rejecting a claimant’s testimony. Although the administrative law judge properly relied on objective evidence when evaluating A.Z.’s physical-impairment statements, the court found that the judge did not provide specific reasons for rejecting her mental-health testimony. The record contained evidence of depression and recent reports of depressed mood, which supported that testimony. The court therefore concluded that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence sufficient for a reasonable person to accept the conclusion.

Later-Submitted Evidence

The court stated that it could not review the Appeals Council’s refusal to consider Dr. Melville’s report as a basis for overturning that refusal. But the court could consider the report when deciding whether the case should be sent back to the administrative law judge. The report provided additional objective evidence concerning A.Z.’s mental-health impairments and had to be considered on remand along with A.Z.’s testimony.

Disposition

The court granted A.Z.’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings, including consideration of Dr. Melville’s report. The court concluded that the denial of benefits was not supported by substantial evidence, while also concluding that the administrative law judge had adequately developed the record.