Violet G. v. Kijakazi

Background

Violet G. applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, claiming disability beginning in January 2017 because of epilepsy, memory problems, nonepileptic seizures, anxiety, and depression. The applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Violet G. was not disabled. The ALJ determined that she had several severe physical and mental impairments but retained the capacity to perform light work with restrictions, including no commercial driving, no work around life-threatening dangers, no climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, limited interaction with others, and no complex decision-making. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the ALJ found that she could perform jobs including garment bagger, tagger, and cleaner.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Violet G. argued that the ALJ improperly evaluated the opinion of Dr. Deanna Dickens, who treated her for epilepsy, nonepileptic events, and seizures. Dr. Dickens described seizure-related restrictions and several mental-work limitations, including marked limitations in working near others and responding to workplace changes, an extreme limitation in setting goals or making plans independently, and a likely absence of one day per month.

Court’s analysis

For claims filed under the newer Social Security regulations, an ALJ must evaluate how persuasive a medical opinion is. The two most important factors are supportability—whether the medical source’s own evidence and explanations support the opinion—and consistency—whether the opinion fits with other evidence in the record. The ALJ must explain how both factors were considered.

The ALJ found Dr. Dickens’ opinion persuasive as to seizure precautions but unpersuasive as to monthly absences and marked or extreme limitations. The court concluded that the ALJ did not address the supportability factor as required. The parties agreed that, although the ALJ used the term “support,” the discussion actually addressed consistency with other evidence. The court treated the failure to address supportability as legal error requiring a remand and stated that it could not supply reasons that the ALJ had not given or rely on explanations offered later by the Commissioner.

Disposition

The court ordered the ALJ to reconsider Dr. Dickens’ opinion. If the ALJ again finds the opinion unpersuasive, the ALJ must explain the decision by addressing supportability, consistency, and any other relevant factors. The court did not order immediate payment of disability benefits.

The court granted in part and denied in part Violet G.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’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. Judge Tony N. Leung signed the order.