Tracey L. W. v. Kijakazi

Background

Tracey L. W. applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and supplemental security income under Title XVI. She alleged that she had been disabled since October 22, 2018. The Social Security Administration denied the applications initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge issued an unfavorable decision, and the Appeals Council denied review. Tracey L. W. then filed this federal case, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments including rheumatoid arthritis, degenerative disc disease, anorexia with a related choking phobia, panic disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, cannabis dependence, fibromyalgia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, and trochanteric bursitis. The administrative law judge found that none of these impairments, alone or together, met or equaled a listed impairment. The judge determined that Tracey L. W. could perform light work with additional physical and mental limitations. Although she could not perform her past work as a telephone solicitor, the judge found that she could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers, including router, routing clerk, and laundry worker.

Constitutional challenge

Tracey L. W. argued that 42 U.S.C. § 902(a)(3), which limited the President’s ability to remove the Social Security Commissioner, violated separation-of-powers principles. She argued that Commissioner Andrew Saul therefore lacked authority to delegate power to the administrative law judge and Appeals Council, and she requested a new hearing before a different administrative law judge.

The court explained that the Commissioner conceded, and courts had found, that the removal restriction violated separation-of-powers principles to the extent it limited the President’s removal authority. But the court also explained that an unconstitutional removal restriction does not automatically invalidate agency actions. A claimant seeking relief on that basis must show that the restriction caused the claimed harm.

The court found that Tracey L. W. challenged the delegation of authority rather than the appointments of the administrative adjudicators. It concluded that the adjudicators were properly appointed and that Tracey L. W. had not shown a connection between the removal restriction and the denial of her benefits. The court therefore denied her request for a remand based on the separation-of-powers argument and granted the Commissioner’s motion on that issue.

Medical-opinion evidence

Tracey L. W. argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the opinion of Alex Mullins, an advanced practice registered nurse who treated her for bipolar II disorder, anorexia nervosa, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Mullins described several moderate, marked, and extreme limitations, including severe limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace; difficulty adapting or managing herself; being off task more than 25 percent of a typical workday; and more than four absences per month.

Under the applicable regulations, administrative law judges evaluate medical opinions for persuasiveness, giving primary importance to supportability and consistency. Supportability concerns whether a medical source’s objective evidence and explanations support the opinion. Consistency concerns whether the opinion fits with evidence from other medical and nonmedical sources.

The administrative law judge found Mullins’ opinion unpersuasive because the objective findings did not support the degree of limitations described. The court held that the administrative law judge adequately addressed supportability by relying on mental-status examinations and the lack of objective findings supporting extreme limitations. The court also held that the administrative law judge adequately addressed consistency by comparing Mullins’ opinion with other medical opinions, treatment records, and Tracey L. W.’s reported activities. The court noted evidence that she had good attention and concentration at one examination, managed her finances and medical care, lived independently, attended church, read, watched television, and spent time with friends and family.

Pain and other symptoms

Tracey L. W. also argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her pain and other symptoms. The administrative law judge found that her medically determinable impairments could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, but that her statements about their intensity and effects were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence.

The court found that the administrative law judge considered the objective medical evidence, including relatively stable mental-status findings, improving or stable mood, and several unremarkable physical examinations. The administrative law judge also considered daily activities, including managing finances, taking medications, handling medical care, attending church, reading, watching television, and spending time with others. The court held that the administrative law judge was not required to discuss every regulatory factor separately and gave adequate reasons supported by substantial evidence for the symptom evaluation.

Disposition

Judge Leung ordered that Tracey L. W.’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.