Jacobson v. Berryhill

Background

David L. Jacobson sought judicial review of a final Social Security Administration decision denying his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits, Supplemental Security Income, and Child Insurance Benefits. The administrative law judge found that Jacobson had severe impairments including intellectual disability, disruptive mood disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, epilepsy, and attention deficit disorder. The judge determined that Jacobson could perform simple, routine work with limited workplace interaction and concluded, based on vocational-expert testimony, that he could perform jobs such as laborer and packer. The Appeals Council adopted the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity assessment and upheld the denial of benefits.

The Parties’ Arguments

Jacobson argued that the agency failed to give appropriate weight to the opinions of his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Candida Fink, and treating neurologist, Dr. Orrin Devinsky. The Commissioner defended the agency’s decision and cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Legal Standard

Because Jacobson filed his claims before March 27, 2017, the court applied the Social Security Administration’s treating-physician rule. Under that rule, a treating source’s medical opinion generally receives controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable evidence and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. If an administrative law judge declines to give controlling weight, the judge must provide good reasons and consider factors such as the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the doctor’s specialty, and the opinion’s support and consistency.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge improperly discounted Dr. Fink’s opinion. The judge did not discuss the length and frequency of Dr. Fink’s treatment relationship with Jacobson, which had lasted about seven years with quarterly treatment, or the nature and extent of that relationship. The judge also did not consider Dr. Fink’s area of expertise. The court further found that the reasons given for discounting Dr. Fink’s opinion did not adequately account for evidence supporting it, including IQ testing and evidence concerning Jacobson’s adaptive functioning.

The court also found that the administrative law judge failed to consider required treatment-relationship factors when evaluating Dr. Devinsky’s opinion, even though Dr. Devinsky had treated Jacobson as a neurologist for more than 18 years. Although the court agreed that the ultimate disability determination was reserved to the Commissioner, it found that the judge incorrectly dismissed Dr. Devinsky’s opinions as unsupported. The court concluded that the failure to apply the treating-physician rule was legal error that affected the residual functional capacity finding and the Appeals Council’s decision.

Disposition

Judge Sarah Netburn granted Jacobson’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court remanded the matter under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the motions and close the case.