Jodie M. S. v. Kijakazi

Background

Jodie M. S. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged disability after a 2015 car accident that caused a brain injury affecting her cognitive skills, including memory and communication.

An administrative law judge previously found that Jodie M. S. was not disabled. In an earlier related proceeding, the court remanded the matter and directed the administrative law judge to consider psychologist Thomas Bergquist’s opinions, reconsider Jodie M. S.’s residual functional capacity, and reconsider the findings about past and other work. After the applications were consolidated and a new hearing was held, the administrative law judge again found that Jodie M. S. was not disabled.

The administrative law judge found that Jodie M. S. could perform light work with physical and mental restrictions, including simple, routine, and repetitive tasks. The judge found that she could perform her past work as a sales attendant and could also perform jobs such as hand packager, routing clerk, and garment sorter.

Parties’ Arguments

Jodie M. S. argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the medical opinions concerning her mental impairments and did not properly analyze her subjective complaints. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the medical opinions and Jodie M. S.’s complaints.

Analysis

The court reviewed whether the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence that a reasonable decision-maker could accept as adequate when considering the record as a whole.

The court held that Bergquist’s 2018 and 2021 opinions were consistent with substantial evidence showing significant cognitive limitations. The record included evidence of memory problems, difficulty following instructions, word-finding problems, distractibility, fatigue, confusion, and impaired abilities to process, organize, and retain information. The court found that the administrative law judge’s reasons for giving Bergquist’s opinions no weight were inadequate. Among other things, the administrative law judge relied on daily activities, testing results, mental-status examinations, psychological questionnaire scores, and Jodie M. S.’s failure to follow certain treatment recommendations. The court concluded that these reasons did not adequately account for the evidence supporting Bergquist’s opinions.

The court reached a similar conclusion about the opinions of consultative examining psychologists William Dickson and Donald Wiger. Dickson reported that Jodie M. S. functioned poorly even in a simplified environment, needed substantial oversight and assistance, and would not be successful independently pursuing full- or part-time employment. Wiger reported significant problems with memory, response time, comprehension, confusion, concentration, persistence, and pace. The court found that these opinions were supported by the record and that the administrative law judge’s reasons for rejecting them were flawed. The court also found that the administrative law judge failed to account for evidence documenting deficits in concentration, pace, and persistence.

Because the court was remanding for further consideration of the medical-opinion evidence, it did not decide Jodie M. S.’s arguments about her subjective complaints.

Disposition

The court ordered the matter remanded to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings concerning the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity determination. On remand, the administrative law judge must reconsider the opinions of Bergquist, Dickson, and Wiger concerning Jodie M. S.’s mental limitations, redetermine her residual functional capacity, and make new findings at the steps concerning past and other work.

The court granted in part and denied in part Jodie M. S.’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. Judge Becky R. Thorson signed the opinion and order.