Michael A. K. v. Kijakazi

Background

Michael A. K. applied for Supplemental Security Income on May 24, 2017, alleging disability beginning March 31, 2017. He identified chronic fatigue syndrome, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, anxiety, and obstructive sleep apnea.

After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge found that Michael A. K. had severe impairments consisting of chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgia, autism spectrum disorder, depression, and generalized anxiety disorder. The judge found that none of those impairments met or medically equaled a listed impairment. The judge determined that Michael A. K. could perform light work subject to several restrictions and could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The judge therefore found him not disabled. The Appeals Council affirmed that decision.

Michael A. K. sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). He argued that the Administrative Law Judge failed to consider all of his impairments and failed to consider their combined effects. He asked the court to reverse the decision or remand the matter for fuller consideration of the evidence.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed whether the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate support for the decision.

The court found that the Administrative Law Judge did not specifically address Michael A. K.’s diagnosed attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, even though the medical evidence referred to it several times. Because the decision did not explain the treatment of that diagnosis, the court could not determine whether substantial evidence supported the implicit decision to discount it.

The court also found error in the treatment of sleep apnea. Although substantial evidence might support a finding that the sleep apnea did not meet the requirements of a listed impairment, the Administrative Law Judge still needed to expressly consider the limitations likely to result from that condition.

The court further determined that the Administrative Law Judge did not sufficiently analyze chronic fatigue syndrome. The court found that the judge appeared mainly to discount Michael A. K.’s subjective complaints based on the routine and outpatient nature of his treatment. The court explained that this reasoning did not account for federal guidance stating that treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome may be sporadic and that conflicting medical evidence is not unusual. The judge also did not adequately consider the combined effect of chronic fatigue syndrome and Michael A. K.’s other impairments.

Disposition

The court held that the Administrative Law Judge had not considered all of Michael A. K.’s conditions or fully evaluated their combined effects. It therefore ordered further proceedings.

The order:

- Granted Michael A. K.’s motion for summary judgment. - Denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. - Remanded the matter to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The order required the Administrative Law Judge on remand to consider all of Michael A. K.’s medically determinable medical and mental-health conditions, including attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, sleep apnea, and chronic fatigue syndrome, and to evaluate whether their combination could reasonably produce the claimed disabling limitations. The order did not itself decide that Michael A. K. was entitled to benefits.