Diane M. W. v. Kijakazi

Background

Diane M. W. applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act in October 2018. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and again on reconsideration. After a hearing in April 2020, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Diane M. W. was not disabled during the relevant period. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The ALJ found several severe mental impairments, including borderline intellectual functioning, major depressive disorder, persistent depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder. The ALJ determined that these impairments did not meet the applicable severity requirements and assessed a residual functional capacity (RFC), meaning the most work a person can still do despite limitations. The ALJ concluded that Diane M. W. could perform her past relevant work and other jobs in the national economy.

Diane M. W. sought judicial review and moved for summary judgment. She argued that the Commissioner had improperly evaluated medical opinions, mischaracterized the severity of her headaches, and relied on the allegedly unconstitutional appointment of former Commissioner Andrew Saul. The Commissioner opposed her motion and moved for summary judgment.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended granting Diane M. W.’s motion for summary judgment in part, denying the Commissioner’s motion, reversing and remanding the Commissioner’s decision, and dismissing the action with prejudice. The recommendation concluded that the ALJ improperly discredited or failed to evaluate opinions from clinical psychologist David Kearn and neurologist Rupert E. Exconde under the regulation governing medical-opinion evaluation. It also concluded that substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s evaluation of Diane M. W.’s headaches. The magistrate judge did not reach the constitutional appointment issue.

Diane M. W. objected only to the recommendation’s conclusion that the ALJ had adequately evaluated the opinions of state-agency psychologists Ken Lovko and Ray Conroe. The Commissioner did not object.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the challenged portion of the recommendation independently. Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c, an ALJ evaluates how persuasive a medical opinion is without automatically deferring to any medical source. The most important factors are supportability—whether the opinion is supported by objective medical evidence—and consistency—whether it agrees with other evidence in the record.

The court agreed with the magistrate judge that the ALJ sufficiently considered the state psychologists’ opinions. The ALJ found those opinions only partly persuasive, accepted their recommendation that Diane M. W. avoid complex and detailed work, and rejected their view that she needed an isolated or semi-isolated work environment. The court concluded that the ALJ adequately considered whether those opinions were supported by and consistent with the record, including Diane M. W.’s documented activities. The court therefore overruled her objection and adopted the recommendation in full.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered:

- Diane M. W.’s objection was overruled. - The Report and Recommendation was adopted. - Diane M. W.’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part. - The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was denied. - The Commissioner’s final decision was reversed. - The case was remanded to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation and the court’s order. - The action was dismissed with prejudice.