Moua L. v. Saul

Background

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to rule on the Social Security Administration’s decision. The court held a hearing and ruled from the bench in favor of Xai Moua L. This corrected order summarizes the reasons stated at the hearing.

The dispute concerned the administrative law judge’s treatment of an opinion from Xai Moua L.’s treating primary care physician, Dr. Charlene Ulstad-Warkentien. The physician concluded that Xai Moua L. would be absent from work three or more days each month because of her mental-health symptoms.

Court’s analysis

The court identified three errors in the administrative law judge’s evaluation of that opinion.

First, the administrative law judge did not address the physician’s assessment about monthly absences. Without addressing that limitation, the court could not effectively review the reason the administrative law judge gave the opinion little weight.

Second, the administrative law judge did not analyze important aspects of the treatment relationship. Dr. Ulstad-Warkentien had treated Xai Moua L. for more than 15 years, had at least seven office visits with her between March 2016 and January 2018, and had been substantially involved in her physical and mental-health care. The court held that these factors required consideration and that the administrative law judge failed to provide good reasons for assigning the physician’s entire opinion little weight.

Third, the court held that, to the extent the administrative law judge found the physician’s opinion inconsistent with the overall record, that finding was not supported by substantial evidence. The administrative law judge focused improperly on periods when Xai Moua L.’s functioning was at its best and did not adequately account for fluctuations in her symptoms.

The court also rejected the stated inconsistencies involving trips to Thailand and California, occasional yard work, knitting and sewing, driving, and daily activities. It found that these activities did not substantially show that Xai Moua L. could consistently attend a full-time job. Other evidence—including emotional distress during appointments, hospitalizations, emergency mental-health treatment, daily personal-care assistance, and a treating therapist’s opinion—was consistent with the physician’s assessment that she would miss more than three workdays each month.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Menendez ordered that Xai Moua L.’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED, and the administrative law judge’s decision was REVERSED. The case was REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for a supplemental hearing and further administrative action consistent with the order, under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).