Kane v. Berryhill

Background

Kathryn G. Kane sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Kane alleged disability based on several mental impairments, including bipolar or depressive disorder, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, personality disorder, and borderline intelligence. The administrative law judge denied her applications after a hearing, and the Appeals Council declined review.

The administrative law judge concluded that Kane’s impairments did not meet or medically equal several listed impairments, including Listing 12.05, which concerns intellectual disability. The judge found that Kane did not satisfy the relevant requirements, including the requirements involving qualifying intelligence-test scores and limitations in functioning. The judge also found that Kane could perform a restricted range of light, simple, routine work and could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Issues and analysis

Kane challenged the administrative law judge’s evaluation of paragraph C of Listing 12.05 and the evaluation of whether her impairments met or medically equaled a combination of other listings. The court limited its analysis to Listing 12.05 because it found that issue required remand.

The record included intelligence testing by Stephen J. Antonello in 2011 and 2014, producing full-scale IQ scores of 72 and 67, respectively. Testing by the Natalis doctors in 2015 produced a full-scale IQ score of 57. The administrative law judge gave little or no weight to the later Natalis testing for several reasons, including the report’s lack of discussion of earlier testing, questions about whether the results accurately reflected Kane’s functioning, Kane’s incomplete disclosure of past substance use, and the absence of a specific cognitive-disorder diagnosis.

The court held that these reasons were not adequately supported or explained. The administrative law judge did not reconcile differences between the testing methods, including the Natalis doctors’ decision to remove time limits because Kane became anxious and overwhelmed during timed tasks. The judge also did not adequately explain why the Natalis report was treated differently from Antonello’s report regarding whether the results reflected Kane’s functioning. The court found no record support for assuming that Kane’s failure to disclose her substance-use history would have changed the Natalis test results, and it noted that the Natalis report described significant cognitive difficulties even though it did not use a specific cognitive-disorder diagnosis.

The court also found that the administrative law judge did not address whether Kane’s intellectual impairment first appeared before age 22, a requirement relevant to Listing 12.05. Because the unresolved inconsistencies affected the evaluation of the listing, the court could not determine whether substantial evidence supported the administrative decision. The court did not decide whether Kane was entitled to benefits.

Disposition

The court granted Kane’s motion for summary judgment as to remand and denied it to the extent she sought reversal of the decision and an award of benefits. It denied the Acting Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. The court remanded the case for further consideration consistent with the order and ordered that the case be dismissed. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.