O'Connor v. Kijakazi

Background

This is a Title II Social Security disability case. O'Connor proceeded without a lawyer. The relevant period ran from June 2017, her alleged onset date, through March 2019, her date last insured.

In an earlier order, the court remanded the case after finding errors by the administrative law judge (ALJ). The court found that the ALJ improperly treated O'Connor's migraines as non-severe at the second step of the disability analysis, overlooked evidence of memory deficits and other cognitive problems related to her dyscognitive seizure disorder, and improperly rejected her fibromyalgia diagnosis because the record did not clearly document trigger points or a rheumatologist's diagnosis.

The court also found that the record was not sufficiently developed regarding the limitations caused by these conditions and regarding physical limitations described by Dr. Paul Lynn. The remand instructions required the ALJ to obtain a consultative psychological examination using specified tests, obtain a rheumatology examination, and either subpoena Dr. Lynn or communicate with him about the medical basis and timing of his opinions. The court also noted that the ALJ could take other steps, including holding another hearing.

Motion to Alter or Amend

Kijakazi moved to alter or amend the judgment. The motion argued that the court should have applied the rule requiring a disability claimant to provide medical and other evidence supporting the claimed impairments, rather than requiring the ALJ to develop the record.

The court rejected that argument. It explained that the record contained sufficient indications that O'Connor had migraines, fibromyalgia, and cognitive manifestations of her seizure disorder during the relevant period. Those indications triggered the ALJ's duty to develop the record before moving past the second step of the disability analysis and determining O'Connor's residual functional capacity. The court emphasized that this duty is stronger when a claimant may have a mental illness and may be unable to protect her own interests. The court also noted that O'Connor was unrepresented, that the ALJ did not ask her basic questions about the impairments or their effects, and that the ALJ relied on the incomplete record in issuing an adverse decision.

Kijakazi also argued that examinations conducted years after the date last insured could not reasonably describe O'Connor's historical functional abilities and that consultative examiners do not review the claimant's longitudinal medical record. The court found the first argument was not categorically correct because later medical evaluations may relate back to conditions and treatment during the earlier disability period. It also rejected the claim about record review, citing examples in which consultative examiners reviewed medical records.

Finally, Kijakazi argued that Dr. Lynn's failure to identify when his limitations first applied meant there was no evidence of limitations. The court found that argument unpersuasive and reiterated that the ALJ should have developed a complete record rather than treating ambiguity or incompleteness as a reason to issue an adverse decision.

Ruling

Judge Robert M. Illman denied Kijakazi's motion to alter or amend the judgment. The court granted Kijakazi's request for clarification to the extent that, on remand, the ALJ must provide each examiner with complete copies of O'Connor's medical records, direct the examiners to conduct the examinations described in the earlier remand order, require review of the relevant medical records, and obtain written opinions addressing whether the findings apply retrospectively to the relevant disability period.

The ALJ must also request from O'Connor a self-report describing the limitations she experienced during the relevant period from the medical impairments identified in the remand order. The court stated that these steps were required before the ALJ could have a fully and fairly developed record for deciding O'Connor's disability during the period at issue.