Angie R. v. Kijakazi

Background

Angie R. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged disability based on multiple sclerosis, myofascial pain, migraines, and sleeping problems. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Catherine Ma found that Angie R. was not disabled.

The administrative law judge found that multiple sclerosis and fibromyalgia were severe impairments but that none of Angie R.’s impairments met or medically equaled a listed impairment. The judge determined that she could perform light work with restrictions, including limits on lifting, exposure to heat and cold, climbing, and workplace hazards. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the judge found that she could perform several past jobs and, alternatively, other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Issue and arguments

Angie R.’s principal argument was that the administrative law judge improperly failed to use the Psychiatric Review Technique, a required regulatory method for evaluating a medically determinable mental impairment. She argued that the technique was required because multiple sclerosis can cause mental limitations such as problems with attention and concentration. She also argued that the alleged error affected the later assessment of her ability to work.

The Commissioner argued that multiple sclerosis is a neurological condition, not itself a mental impairment, and that Angie R. had neither alleged nor established a severe medically determinable mental condition requiring the technique.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the Psychiatric Review Technique is required when a claimant has a medically determinable mental impairment. It requires the administrative law judge to evaluate limitations in four areas: understanding, remembering, and applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, persisting, and maintaining pace; and adapting or managing oneself.

The court distinguished the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Cuthrell, where the record included findings of dementia, impaired memory and concentration, and a mood disorder following a head injury. In this case, the court reasoned, the applicable neurological listings directed the Commissioner to evaluate mental-function limitations caused by multiple sclerosis under the neurological listings, unless the claimant had only a mental impairment or an independent mental condition. Angie R. did not argue that she had a neurocognitive disorder or that she should have been evaluated under the mental-disorder listing for neurocognitive disorders.

The court found that the record did not identify a medically determinable mental impairment. Although Angie R. reported fatigue, impaired attention, concentration problems, and cognitive slowing, the court determined that the evidence attributed those difficulties to physical fatigue caused by multiple sclerosis rather than to a mental condition. The court also noted the absence of a mental-illness diagnosis and the generally normal mental-status examinations. It concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that she did not have a medically determinable mental impairment requiring the Psychiatric Review Technique. The court alternatively stated that any failure to use the technique would have been harmless.

The court also addressed Angie R.’s argument that her ability to perform highly skilled past work was inconsistent with the evidence and her employer’s accommodations. It rejected that argument because the administrative law judge found, based on vocational-expert testimony, that she could perform her past work as generally performed and as she had actually performed it. The administrative law judge also made an alternative finding that she could perform other jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy.

Disposition

The court ordered that Angie R.’s motion for summary judgment be denied and that Commissioner Andrew M. Saul’s motion for summary judgment be granted. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly, leaving the denial of disability insurance benefits in place.

Note on the case name

The supplied case name identifies the defendant as Kijakazi, but the opinion’s caption and order identify the defendant as Andrew M. Saul. This summary follows the opinion text.