Gaoee T. v. Kijakazi

Background

Gaoee T. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She alleged impairments including migraines, digestive problems, heart problems, diabetes, memory loss, depression, poor focus, anxiety, and pain.

The Administrative Law Judge found severe impairments involving degenerative changes in the cervical spine, migraine headaches, depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. The Administrative Law Judge found that Gaoee T. did not have a medically determinable cognitive disorder. The judge assessed a residual functional capacity allowing medium work with restrictions, including routine, repetitive, noncomplex tasks; fixed and predictable work; and no fast-paced, high-production work. The judge found that Gaoee T. could not perform her past work but could perform jobs including laundry worker, kitchen helper, and scrap sorter. The Appeals Council denied review, making the Administrative Law Judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Cognition and Memory

The court held that the Administrative Law Judge failed to fully and fairly develop the record concerning Gaoee T.’s cognition and memory. The Social Security Administration arranged a psychological evaluation by Dr. Craig Barron, Psy.D. Dr. Barron received only one treatment note, from psychiatric nurse practitioner Oreoluwa Oye. Dr. Barron reported unusual and significantly impaired memory-test results, questioned whether Gaoee T. understood the testing, and stated that it would have been helpful to review more records from her primary-care physician. He also wrote that if other records supported significant cognitive and memory impairment, employability should be reassessed.

The court noted that relevant records were available but were not provided to Dr. Barron. Those records included repeated reports of memory and concentration problems, observations by Dr. Endea Curry that memory was impaired, and providers’ concerns that Topamax might be contributing to the symptoms. The court concluded that these records contained necessary background information that should have been given to the consultative examiner under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1517 and 416.917.

The court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that the error was harmless. The Administrative Law Judge relied on Dr. Barron’s opinion in assessing the mental restrictions in the residual functional capacity and considered that opinion persuasive. The opinion also influenced the state-agency psychological consultants’ opinions, which the Administrative Law Judge considered most persuasive. The court therefore ordered a new consultative examination, with instructions to provide the examiner all necessary background information about Gaoee T.’s memory and cognitive issues.

Medical Limitation and Work Assessment

Gaoee T. argued that the Administrative Law Judge failed to include the word “detailed” in the residual functional capacity even though the judge found Dr. Jeffrey Boyd’s opinion persuasive. Dr. Boyd had stated that Gaoee T. could perform routine, repetitive, three- to four-step tasks but was markedly limited regarding detailed or complex tasks and work settings.

The court rejected this argument. It distinguished Gann v. Berryhill, reasoning that the limitations omitted in that case were more extensive than the single word “detailed.” The court determined that the residual functional capacity’s restrictions to routine, repetitive, noncomplex, fixed, and predictable tasks, along with its prohibition on fast-paced or high-production work, covered the same functional ground. The court also observed that Dr. Boyd had found Gaoee T.’s ability to carry out very short and simple instructions not significantly limited and her ability to carry out detailed instructions moderately limited. The court concluded that the residual functional capacity was consistent with those findings and that the Administrative Law Judge did not err on this issue.

Constitutional Appointment Challenge

Gaoee T. argued that the Administrative Law Judge was not constitutionally appointed because Acting Commissioner Nancy Berryhill lacked authority to ratify the appointment. The court rejected the challenge. It relied on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Dahle v. Kijakazi, which held that Berryhill was properly serving as Acting Commissioner when she ratified the appointments of the Social Security Administration’s Administrative Law Judges. The court concluded that Gaoee T.’s constitutional challenge lacked merit.

Disposition

Judge Docherty denied the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the order. The opinion did not award benefits; it required additional agency proceedings focused on properly developing the evidence concerning Gaoee T.’s cognition and memory.