Brooks v. Saul

Background

Geraldine Brooks sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner of Social Security’s determination that she was not entitled to Social Security Disability benefits or supplemental security income. The parties filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the filed pleadings and whether one side is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Magistrate Judge James L. Cott recommended that Brooks’s motion for remand be granted and that the Commissioner’s motion to uphold the administrative decision be denied. The Commissioner did not object to the Report and Recommendation. Judge Daniels therefore reviewed the report for clear error and found none.

Court’s Analysis

The administrative law judge found that Brooks had asthma, osteoarthritis in multiple sites, a right-arm impairment, obesity, depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder, but concluded that she was not disabled and could perform light work available in the national economy.

The court agreed that the administrative law judge failed to properly evaluate the available medical evidence concerning Brooks’s mental impairments. The governing regulations require consideration of the supportability and consistency of each medical opinion. The administrative law judge relied largely on two consultative examinations that substantially predated the time when Brooks stopped working, while overlooking opinions from Nurse Decamp, Brooks’s psychiatric treating source, and Dr. Schiach, a consultative psychologist. The court also agreed that the administrative law judge improperly discounted Brooks’s own testimony, which supported and was consistent with those medical opinions.

The court further agreed that the administrative law judge’s assessment of Brooks’s residual functional capacity—the work-related activities she could still perform—was not supported by the record. Treatment records supported medical reports that the administrative law judge had discounted. The records showed that, even when Brooks was fully or partially compliant with medication, she continued to experience depression, mood swings, a disheveled appearance, and sad, worried, and unstable affect. The court concluded that the administrative law judge had substituted a personal lay opinion for the medical evidence and had failed to account for objective evidence and Brooks’s reported symptoms.

The court also found that the administrative law judge failed to adequately develop the record concerning Brooks’s physical impairments. The record contained a 2017 functional assessment that predated Brooks’s later cessation of employment and reported arm fracture, along with a favorable 2019 assessment that the administrative law judge rejected. This created an obvious gap concerning the period when Brooks became injured and stopped working. The court agreed that an additional functional assessment should have been obtained. It also agreed that the administrative law judge posed an improper hypothetical to a vocational expert, creating a substantial possibility that the testimony was misleading.

Disposition

Judge Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Cott’s Report and Recommendation in full. Brooks’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. The case was remanded to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court did not make a final award of disability benefits or supplemental security income.