Reed v. Saul

Background

James Paul Armstrong Reed sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Reed alleged disability beginning May 6, 2015. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Catherine Ma found that Reed had severe impairments including a neurocognitive disorder, alcohol addiction disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline personality disorder, and anxiety disorder. The administrative law judge found that Reed could perform work at all exertional levels subject to limits against production-rate work and limiting him to routine workplace changes. Because a vocational expert identified jobs Reed could perform, the administrative law judge found him not disabled.

Both sides moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule based on the administrative record.

Treating Physician’s Opinion

Reed argued that the administrative law judge improperly gave little weight to the opinion of Martin Sievert, M.D., who had treated Reed since December 2016. Sievert stated that Reed could not work full time because of his mental illness and identified specific limitations, including difficulty understanding, remembering, and carrying out simple instructions; inability to maintain attention for at least two hours; a need for unscheduled breaks; likely absences of two or more days per month; and an ability to work only two hours per day and ten hours per week.

The administrative law judge discounted Sievert’s opinion because it was unclear whether he understood the Social Security disability program, because statements about being unable to work concern an issue reserved to the Commissioner, and because the opinion used a checklist form without enough explanation or function-by-function analysis.

The court held that these reasons did not adequately explain the decision to discount Sievert’s opinion. The court emphasized that Sievert was a treating physician, that the record contained treatment notes from the treatment relationship, and that the opinion included specific limitations. The court ruled that the administrative law judge must provide sufficiently specific “good reasons” if the opinion is not given controlling weight, including reasons based on supportability, consistency, the treatment relationship, and other applicable factors.

State-Agency Consultants’ Opinions

Reed also argued that the administrative law judge failed to address moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace identified by state-agency psychological consultants. The consultants nevertheless concluded that Reed could concentrate and attend to limited detailed tasks, although he had moderate limitations with complex and technical tasks.

The court found no error requiring reversal on this issue. It concluded that the administrative law judge was not required to adopt the consultants’ opinions and that any failure to discuss the moderate concentration limitation would not have had a practical effect because the administrative law judge limited Reed to unskilled work.

Ruling

The court held that the Commissioner’s final decision was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Reed’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was denied. The case was reversed and remanded for reevaluation of Sievert’s opinion and issuance of a new decision. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment accordingly.