Tammy J. R. v. Kijakazi

Background

Tammy J. R. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She alleged disability beginning August 1, 2010, based on physical and mental conditions including rheumatoid arthritis, chronic pain, joint and spine problems, depression, anxiety, and other impairments. The administrative law judge found that she was not disabled and had the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her limitations—to perform sedentary work with restrictions. The administrative law judge also found that she could perform several jobs existing in significant numbers in the national and state economies.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Tammy J. R. argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Darin Skaudis, and rejected limitations in that opinion without a legally sufficient explanation. Dr. Skaudis stated that she could stand and walk for a maximum of two hours per day, sit for a maximum of two hours per day, and might need to lie down at unexpected intervals during a work shift. The administrative law judge gave that opinion little weight and gave great weight to the opinion of a medical expert who testified that Tammy J. R. generally functioned at the sedentary level, subject to restrictions.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge did not give adequate reasons for discounting Dr. Skaudis’s opinion. Because Tammy J. R.’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the court applied the regulations requiring an administrative law judge to give appropriate consideration to treating-source opinions and to provide good reasons for the weight assigned to them. The decision mainly stated that Dr. Skaudis’s opinion was on a check-box form and provided no explanation, but the court found that the opinion did identify reasons for the limitations, including hip and back pain, shoulder surgery, an immobilizing splint, and orthopedic postoperative restrictions. The court also noted Dr. Skaudis’s ongoing treatment relationship with Tammy J. R. and the supporting treatment records. The administrative law judge did not adequately discuss the opinion’s consistency with the medical evidence, Dr. Skaudis’s prior recommendations, the medical expert’s evidence, or the required regulatory factors.

The court also held that the administrative law judge failed to adequately consider whether Tammy J. R. was disabled during a closed period. A closed period is a continuous period of at least 12 months during which a claimant may qualify as disabled even if the claimant does not remain disabled afterward. Tammy J. R. identified one proposed period from August 1, 2010, through August 1, 2011, and another from January 3, 2017, through January 3, 2018. The court found that the frequency of her surgeries and hospitalizations raised the question whether the periods when she had less than sedentary capacity overlapped and prevented her from performing sedentary work for 12 continuous months. The administrative law judge therefore had to consider those periods and the effects of treatment, including treatment-related restrictions and absences.

Disposition

The opinion’s introductory paragraph states that Tammy J. R.’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part, while the formal order states that her motion was granted and the Commissioner’s motion was denied. The formal order remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the administrative law judge must reweigh the medical opinions, reconsider the residual functional capacity if necessary, and determine whether Tammy J. R. was disabled during any continuous 12-month period. Judge Becky R. Thorson signed the order.