Gaoee T. v. Kijakazi

Background

Gaoee T. sought judicial review 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, depression, anxiety, memory loss, and concentration problems. After a hearing, the administrative law judge found that she was not disabled and that she could not return to her past work but could perform other jobs, including laundry worker, kitchen helper, and scrap sorter.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments involving the cervical spine, migraine headaches, depression, and generalized anxiety disorder, but found no medically determinable cognitive disorder. In assessing Gaoee T.’s residual functional capacity—the most she could still do in a work setting—the judge limited her to medium work with several physical restrictions and routine, repetitive, noncomplex, fixed, and predictable tasks.

Memory and cognition

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 had arranged for Dr. Craig Barron, a psychologist, to perform a consultative evaluation. Dr. Barron reviewed only one psychiatric treatment note. His testing produced scores in the mild intellectual-disability range for overall cognitive abilities and the significantly impaired range for learning and memory. He nevertheless hesitated to diagnose a neurocognitive disorder because the records he reviewed did not support significant cognitive or memory problems.

Dr. Barron stated that additional records from Gaoee T.’s primary physician would have helped him determine whether her presentation was consistent across settings. He also stated that if other records supported significant cognitive and memory impairment, employability should be reassessed. The court noted that records available in the medical history described repeated memory and concentration complaints, possible cognitive effects from Topamax, and an examination in which Dr. Curry recorded that memory was impaired. The court concluded that these records constituted necessary background information that should have been provided to Dr. Barron under the applicable regulations.

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, found his opinion persuasive, and relied on revised state-agency psychological opinions that were influenced by Dr. Barron’s evaluation. The court therefore remanded for a new consultative examination and instructed the Social Security Administration to provide the examiner all necessary background information about Gaoee T.’s memory and cognitive issues.

Other claims

The court rejected Gaoee T.’s argument that the administrative law judge failed to include all limitations identified by Dr. Jeffrey Boyd. Although Dr. Boyd stated that Gaoee T. was markedly limited regarding detailed or complex tasks and work settings, the court found that the residual functional capacity’s restrictions to routine, repetitive, noncomplex, fixed, predictable, and non-fast-paced work adequately covered the same functional limits. The court also found that the administrative law judge was constitutionally appointed. Relying on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in a prior related proceeding, the court concluded that Nancy Berryhill was properly serving as Acting Commissioner when she ratified the appointments of Social Security administrative law judges.

Disposition

Judge John F. Docherty ordered that the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be denied. He reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the order.