Keisha B. v. Kijakazi

Background

Keisha B. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for supplemental security income. The administrative judge found that she had severe intellectual, mood, and anxiety disorders, but determined that she was not disabled because she could perform other work, including laundry aide, clothing bagger, and stuffer. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Keisha B. argued that the administrative judge erred in deciding that her mental impairments did not meet or equal listed impairments concerning depressive, intellectual, and anxiety disorders. She specifically challenged findings that she had only moderate limitations in understanding, remembering, or applying information and in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace. She also argued that the administrative judge failed to consider whether her impairments would cause excessive work absences.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the administrative judge failed to resolve important conflicts in the evidence about Keisha B.’s daily functioning. The administrative judge relied on Keisha B.’s reports that she could manage finances, paperwork, medication, transportation, shopping, meals, and household tasks. But records from her case manager and adult rehabilitative mental-health service providers described substantial assistance with those activities, including reminders, coaching, budgeting help, paperwork support, transportation coordination, and advocacy. Those records also described missed appointments, housing and utility problems, difficulty managing money, periods of neglecting food and hygiene, and difficulty maintaining work and ordinary routines.

The court determined that these unresolved conflicts could affect the findings about both understanding, remembering, or applying information and concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace. The court also found that the conflicts affected the administrative judge’s analysis of the criteria requiring a serious and persistent mental disorder with only marginal adjustment despite ongoing support. The court did not decide whether Keisha B. actually met any listed impairment; it directed that the administrative judge reconsider the evidence and make that determination in the first instance.

On absenteeism, the court found that the administrative judge adequately explained why she gave little weight to a medical source statement from Rebecca Beukema, an advanced practice registered nurse, including its opinion that Keisha B. would be absent more than three times a month. The court criticized the administrative judge’s reasoning that Keisha B.’s absences could be discounted because her current employer had not fired her, especially because the vocational expert testified that employers would generally tolerate no more than one absence per month. Nevertheless, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the decision not to include absenteeism as a limitation in the residual functional capacity assessment.

Recommended Disposition

The report and recommendation, signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer, recommended that Keisha B.’s motion for summary judgment be granted, the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be denied, and the Commissioner’s decision be reversed. It recommended remanding the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings addressing the conflicting evidence about daily activities, the weight given to medical opinions, and whether Keisha B. satisfied the paragraph B or paragraph C criteria for any listed impairment. The report stated that it was not itself an order or judgment and could not be appealed directly to the Court of Appeals.