Pamela K. v. Kijakazi

Background

Pamela K. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged disability beginning June 9, 2017, based on foot, neck, and back problems, depression, and anxiety. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge found that Pamela K. had medically determinable impairments but that none, alone or in combination, was severe. The Administrative Law Judge therefore found her not disabled at step two of the five-step disability evaluation.

Pamela K. and Acting Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi each moved for summary judgment. Pamela K. argued that the Administrative Law Judge applied too demanding a standard when evaluating the severity of her physical and mental impairments. She also argued that the Commissioner’s removal protections violated the constitutional separation of powers. The Commissioner argued that the decision was supported by the medical evidence, diagnostic findings, activities, treatment history, and other record evidence.

Physical impairments

The court held that the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding Pamela K.’s physical impairments non-severe. State-agency medical consultants Dr. Matthias Jordan and Dr. Shayne Small had found that she could perform medium-exertion work with additional limitations. The Administrative Law Judge found those findings unpersuasive, stating that they lacked explanations and were inconsistent with later examination findings, including negative straight-leg-raise tests, normal reflexes, and intact range of motion.

The court identified several problems with that reasoning. The Administrative Law Judge had also said that the consultants’ findings were supported by summaries of the medical record, making the later statement about a lack of support inconsistent. The court further concluded that the Administrative Law Judge drew her own medical inferences about what examination findings meant for Pamela K.’s ability to walk, stand, sit, lift, and perform other work activities. The decision also did not address evidence that pain worsened with walking, working, standing, or sitting, or that foot pain improved after Pamela K. stopped working and spent less time on her feet.

The court therefore remanded for the Commissioner to reconsider the severity of Pamela K.’s physical impairments. The court directed that further inquiry could be conducted into how the examination findings related to workplace functioning and that the prior administrative medical findings must be evaluated without impermissible medical inferences. If any physical impairment, or the combination of physical and mental impairments, is found severe on remand, the Administrative Law Judge must consider all impairments together when determining residual functional capacity.

Mental impairments

The court upheld the finding that Pamela K.’s mental impairments were non-severe. It concluded that substantial evidence supported that finding, including the state-agency consultants’ assessments and psychologist Donald Wiger’s examination. Dr. Wiger found that Pamela K. could understand and follow directions, sustain attention and concentration, perform mental tasks with reasonable persistence and pace, and handle the emotional stressors of at least an entry-level workplace. The court was not persuaded that his statement that she related variably with coworkers and supervisors required a different result.

Constitutional argument

Pamela K. also argued that former Commissioner Andrew Saul’s appointment and removal protections violated the separation of powers and made the Administrative Law Judge’s decision constitutionally defective. Because the court ordered remand on the physical-impairment issue, it did not reach or decide those constitutional arguments.

Disposition

The court granted Pamela K.’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part and denied it in part. It denied Acting Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi’s Motion for Summary Judgment. It remanded the case to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.