Jason L. v. O'Malley

Background

Jason L. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application for supplemental security income. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Jason L.’s request for relief be denied and that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. Jason L. timely objected.

Issue

The objection concerned the administrative law judge’s assessment of Jason L.’s residual functional capacity, meaning the work-related abilities the judge found he retained. The administrative law judge limited Jason L. to occasional interactions with supervisors, coworkers, and the public, but did not include a separate limitation requiring superficial interactions.

A psychological evaluator recommended a superficial-interaction limitation, and two state agency psychological consultants agreed. The district court explained that “occasional” addresses the quantity of interactions, while “superficial” addresses their quality or nature.

Court’s analysis

The administrative law judge found the evaluator’s and consultants’ opinions persuasive concerning the superficial-contact limitation but imposed different limitations without explaining the difference. The administrative law judge also found Jason L. moderately limited in interacting with others during the step-three analysis but did not explain how that finding related to the residual functional capacity assessment.

The court recognized that an administrative law judge need not adopt every limitation recommended by a medical evaluator. But the judge must support decisions to include or exclude limitations with evidence and clearly explain the reasoning. The court found it unclear whether the administrative law judge had treated “superficial” as equivalent to “occasional” or had intentionally excluded a superficial-interaction limitation for another reason. The court said it could not guess at the administrative law judge’s reasoning or create a justification that the agency had not provided.

Disposition

The court sustained Jason L.’s objection and rejected the Report and Recommendation. It granted Jason L.’s request for relief and denied the Commissioner’s request for relief. The court vacated the Commissioner’s final decision and remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings.

On remand, the administrative law judge must either include a superficial-interaction limitation in the residual functional capacity assessment or explain why it is omitted. The administrative law judge must also recall a vocational expert for testimony as needed to address a new hypothetical based on any changed assessment.