Stephanie E. v. Kijakazi

Background

Stephanie E. sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s denial of her application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council declined to review the decision, making it the final agency decision reviewable by the district court. Both parties moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide the case based on the record when there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial.

The opinion describes Stephanie E.’s longstanding anxiety and depression, including recurring depressive episodes that could prevent her from getting out of bed, caring for herself, concentrating, remembering, and attending work. The record also included diagnoses of obesity and hyperparathyroidism. Stephanie E. testified that she had lost five jobs because depressive episodes caused attendance problems. She was unrepresented at the administrative hearing.

Administrative decision

The administrative law judge found that Stephanie E. had not performed substantial gainful activity during the relevant period, had severe impairments consisting of major depressive disorder, anxiety, and obesity, and did not have an impairment meeting or equaling a listed impairment. The judge determined that she could perform medium work with specified limitations, but included no limitation concerning staying on task or maintaining regular attendance. The judge found that Stephanie E. could not perform her past relevant work but could perform other representative occupations identified by a vocational expert.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge failed to develop the record concerning Stephanie E.’s hyperparathyroidism and its effect, individually or together with her other impairments, on her functional limitations. The court explained that the step-two inquiry is a screening step and that an impairment is non-severe only when the evidence shows a slight abnormality with a minimal effect on the person’s ability to work. The court found that the administrative law judge’s failure even to mention hyperparathyroidism or analyze it was legal error that was not harmless because proper consideration could affect the residual functional capacity and the ultimate disability determination.

The court also identified potentially missing treatment evidence. Records from Gardner Family Health referred to a six-month treatment plan, but the administrative record did not contain records showing whether that treatment occurred. Treatment notes also referred to daily therapy sessions in 2020, but the record contained no evidence of those appointments. The court ordered the administrative law judge to investigate whether those records were missing and, if so, take necessary steps to obtain them.

In addition, the court found that the administrative law judge did not give specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting Stephanie E.’s symptom testimony. The judge had stated generally that the testimony was inconsistent with and unsupported by the medical and other evidence. The court found that this general explanation was insufficient, particularly regarding Stephanie E.’s testimony that depressive episodes inevitably caused workplace absences. The court ordered the administrative law judge to reassess that testimony and, if necessary, provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting it.

Disposition

The court found that the administrative law judge’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. It granted Stephanie E.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, denied Martin O’Malley’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order. The court stated that a separate judgment would issue.