Brent Z. v. Kijakazi

Background

Brent Z. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. He suffered a stroke on August 15, 2018, followed by fatigue, weakness in his right arm and foot, facial drooping, speech problems, and a neurocognitive disorder. The administrative law judge also considered his kidney-related conditions and other reported limitations.

The administrative law judge found that Brent Z. had severe impairments but did not meet a listed disability. She found that he could perform less than a full range of light work, with physical restrictions and the ability to understand, remember, and carry out short, simple instructions. She found that he could not return to his prior work as a home remodeler, but relied on vocational-expert testimony that he could perform other jobs, including survey worker, merchandise marker, or routing clerk. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Issues and analysis

Brent Z. raised five claimed errors.

1. Medical opinions. The court concluded that the administrative law judge adequately explained why she found the opinions of consultative examiner Dr. Wagner and Dr. Whiteman only somewhat persuasive. The judge addressed supportability, consistency with the record, the lack of specific functional limitations in some areas, and Brent Z.’s reported social activities. The court found no error on this issue.

2. One-to-two-step limitation. State psychological consultants found that Brent Z. could understand, remember, carry out, and sustain performance of one-to-two-step tasks, but would become overwhelmed by more complicated procedures. The administrative law judge described those opinions as generally persuasive, yet the residual functional capacity included only the broader phrase “short, simple instructions.” The court held that the judge did not explain whether the one-to-two-step limitation was included, excluded, unsupported, or inconsistent with the record. The court treated this as an error of law and recommended remand so the Social Security Administration could either include the limitation or explain why it was omitted.

3. Vocational-expert testimony and job requirements. The court rejected Brent Z.’s argument that the vocational expert’s testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles because some identified jobs had reasoning levels two or three. The court explained that, in this context, “simple instructions” does not necessarily mean one-to-two-step instructions, and it found the reasoning-level-two jobs generally consistent with the administrative law judge’s stated limitation. The court therefore found no separate error under Social Security Ruling 00-4p.

4. Additional consultative examination. The court found that the administrative law judge had enough medical records, testimony, agency assessments, and other evidence to make an informed decision without ordering a neurological examination. It also noted that Brent Z.’s counsel had represented that the record was complete and that Brent Z. had testified that his condition had not substantially changed since 2019. The court found no error on this issue.

5. Appointment of the administrative law judge. Brent Z. argued that Hallie Larsen was not properly appointed because Acting Commissioner Nancy Berryhill lacked authority to ratify the appointment in July 2018. The court interpreted the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and concluded that Berryhill could resume serving as Acting Commissioner while a presidential nominee was pending before the Senate, even though her initial period of acting service had expired. The court therefore concluded that Larsen was properly appointed and had authority to decide the case.

Recommendation and disposition

The court recommended that Brent Z.’s motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part, that the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be denied, and that the Commissioner’s decision be remanded to the Social Security Administration. The stated reason for remand was the failure to explain the omission of the one-to-two-step task limitation from the residual functional capacity. The opinion also recommended that judgment be entered accordingly. Because the document is a report and recommendation, the provided text does not establish whether the district court later adopted it.