Susan M. v. Kijakazi

Background

Susan M. sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s decision denying her application for disability benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, meaning each asked the court to rule in its favor based on the administrative record without a trial.

On May 2, 2023, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the case be remanded to the Social Security Administration. The recommendation was based on uncertainty about whether the administrative law judge considered Susan M.’s July 28, 2020 Work History Report. Kijakazi objected, and Susan M. opposed the objection.

Analysis

The court explained that an administrative law judge must consider several factors when evaluating a claimant’s reports about symptoms such as pain, including daily activities, the condition’s duration and intensity, medication, triggering factors, and functional restrictions. The judge does not have to discuss every piece of evidence, but remand is appropriate when the findings and the record do not allow a court to determine that the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, meaning enough relevant evidence to support the decision.

The July 28, 2020 Work History Report stated that Susan M. could stoop for only two hours and kneel for one hour during an eight-hour shift, and that she did not crouch. The court found that this report conflicted with a July 20, 2020 Work History Report that the administrative law judge appeared to rely on when rejecting Susan M.’s claimed work limitations. Because the record did not show that the July 28 report had been considered, the court could not conclude that substantial evidence supported the Social Security Administration’s decision.

The court reviewed Kijakazi’s objection for clear error because it repeated arguments already presented to and considered by the magistrate judge. The court concluded that the magistrate judge did not err in recommending remand.

Disposition

The court overruled Kijakazi’s objection to the Report and Recommendation and adopted it. It granted Susan M.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, denied Kijakazi’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and remanded the action to the Social Security Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the opinion. The opinion did not decide that Susan M. is entitled to disability benefits.