Jacqueline B. v. Kijakazi

Background

Jacqueline B. sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. She alleged disability based on post-traumatic stress disorder and short-term memory loss. The administrative law judge found that she had severe impairments of borderline intellectual functioning and post-traumatic stress disorder, but determined that she could perform work with limitations involving simple, routine tasks, limited workplace changes, and other restrictions. The judge concluded that jobs such as cleaner, hand packager, and kitchen helper existed in significant numbers in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to rule based on the administrative record. Jacqueline B. argued that the administrative law judge failed to develop the record, failed to properly evaluate her memory loss, improperly evaluated her testimony, used an incomplete question for the vocational expert, and failed to perform the required analysis concerning drug use.

Court’s reasoning

The court focused on the evaluation of Jacqueline B.’s testimony about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. When a claimant presents objective medical evidence of an impairment and there is no evidence of malingering, an administrative law judge must give specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony.

The court held that the administrative law judge’s statement that Jacqueline B.’s statements were “not entirely consistent” with the medical and other evidence was boilerplate. It did not identify which testimony was being rejected or explain what evidence contradicted it. The court concluded that this did not satisfy the required standard.

The court also held that the administrative law judge mischaracterized Jacqueline B.’s daily activities. The decision stated that she managed her money, shopped, and used public transportation, but her testimony indicated that her aunt and uncle paid certain bills, that she did not do her own grocery shopping, and that she usually traveled with family members when going somewhere new. The court therefore found that these activities did not provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting her testimony.

Remand and disposition

The court applied the rule allowing a direct award of benefits when the record is fully developed, the administrative law judge failed to give legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, and crediting that evidence as true would require a disability finding. The court found those requirements satisfied. Jacqueline B. testified that she had short-term memory problems and needed frequent reminders to maintain tasks. Medical evidence supported those limitations, and the vocational expert testified that no jobs would be available for a person who needed daily reminders to complete job tasks or who was off task more than 15 percent of the workday.

Judge Jon S. Tigar granted Jacqueline B.’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court remanded the case for an immediate calculation and payment of benefits.

Note on the case name

The supplied case name identifies the defendant as Kijakazi, but the opinion’s caption identifies the defendant as Martin O’Malley. This summary follows the opinion’s caption.