Susan H. v. Kijakazi

Background

Susan H. appealed the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability benefits. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment, which ask the court to rule based on the administrative record without a trial. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended denying Susan H.’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion. Susan H. objected, so Judge Tostrud reviewed the recommendation independently.

The administrative law judge found that Susan H. had severe impairments involving degenerative joint disease of the knee, a cervical-spine disc protrusion, and fibromyalgia. The administrative law judge concluded that these impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of the listed impairments considered under the Social Security regulations. The administrative law judge found that Susan H. had the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments—to perform medium work with several physical restrictions. The administrative law judge also found that she could perform her past work as a short-order cook and, alternatively, other jobs existing in the national economy.

Issue and analysis

Susan H. argued that the administrative law judge failed to properly evaluate the October 14, 2019 opinion of her primary care physician, Dr. Maral Kenderian. That opinion described limitations involving standing, walking, handling, fingering, reaching, distractions, and rest periods.

For claims filed after March 27, 2017, the applicable regulation requires the administrative law judge to explain how two important factors were considered when evaluating a medical opinion: supportability and consistency. Supportability concerns how well the medical source’s own findings and explanations support the opinion. Consistency concerns how well the opinion fits with evidence from other medical and nonmedical sources.

The administrative law judge stated only that Dr. Kenderian’s opinion was not persuasive because it was “inconsistent with the provider’s notes and minimal objective evidence.” The court found that this was not enough. The administrative law judge did not identify which parts of the opinion conflicted with which parts of the notes or other evidence. Without that explanation, the court could not determine whether the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning enough relevant evidence to support the agency’s decision under the governing review standard.

Susan H. also argued that the administrative law judge improperly relied on an expectation that her knee condition would improve and did not adequately explain the treatment of her fibromyalgia-related limitations. The court did not reach those arguments because Susan H. raised them for the first time in her objections rather than presenting them to the magistrate judge in her original motion.

Disposition

The court sustained Susan H.’s objection to the recommendation and rejected the Report and Recommendation in part. It granted Susan H.’s motion for summary judgment in part, denied Acting Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the order. The order did not award benefits; it required further administrative proceedings.