Myra Q.F. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Myra Q.F. applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits in March 2017, alleging disability beginning January 5, 2017. The Commissioner denied the application initially and again on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Miriam Shire denied the claim on April 30, 2019. The Appeals Council denied review on June 12, 2020, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative law judge found that Myra Q.F. had severe major depressive disorder, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, gender dysphoria, and hearing loss. The judge found that she had the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments—to work at all physical exertion levels, subject to limits including no tasks involving reading, writing, or math; no telephone work; limited noise exposure; shift-work availability; simple work; occasional workplace changes; and occasional interaction with others. Because a vocational expert identified jobs that the judge found Myra Q.F. could perform, the judge concluded that she was not disabled.

Issues and Analysis

Myra Q.F. challenged the administrative decision on three grounds: the step-five analysis of other available work, the evaluation of medical opinions, and the analysis of whether her impairments met or equaled a listed impairment.

Step-Five Analysis

The administrative law judge relied on vocational-expert testimony identifying laundry sorter, laundry worker II, and hotel housekeeper as representative jobs. The court explained that the Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles describes job requirements and that the judge must address any conflict between that information and vocational-expert testimony.

The court found no unresolved conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles itself. The vocational expert had discussed the jobs’ basic educational-development level and testified that the jobs were consistent with the relevant occupational information. But the hypothetical question given to the expert concerned a person who could not perform “much” reading, writing, or mathematics, while the residual-functional-capacity finding stated that Myra Q.F. could not perform any tasks involving reading, writing, or math. The vocational expert was not asked whether a person with the stricter limitation could perform the identified jobs. Because the hypothetical did not match the final functional-capacity finding, the court held that the step-five analysis required remand.

Medical Opinion Evidence

Dr. Kingsley Nwokeji, Myra Q.F.’s treating psychiatrist, provided three opinions stating that she had marked limitations in numerous basic work activities and would miss work more than three times per month because of her impairments or treatment. The administrative law judge gave those opinions little weight, describing the treatment record as inconsistent with them and characterizing the mental-status examinations as entirely unremarkable.

The court held that this evaluation could not be sustained. Dr. Nwokeji had treated Myra Q.F. monthly for four years, and the court found that the administrative law judge did not adequately account for the significance of that extended treatment relationship. The court also found that the characterization of the clinical examinations as entirely unremarkable was conclusory and unsupported by the record. The record included evidence of dysphoric and anxious mood, impaired concentration and memory, depression, personal struggles, and homelessness. The court acknowledged that there were also normal examination findings and that Myra Q.F. was generally cooperative and appropriate during treatment. It explained, however, that functioning in structured and supportive treatment settings does not necessarily establish the ability to function in a regular workplace.

The court also noted that consultative examiner Dr. John Laurence Miller diagnosed recurrent major depressive disorder with psychotic features and found that Myra Q.F.’s psychiatric problems might significantly interfere with daily functioning, although he assessed less severe limitations than Dr. Nwokeji. The court concluded that the administrative law judge needed to address the treating psychiatrist’s and examining psychologist’s opinions before discounting the treating psychiatrist’s assessments and adopting a residual functional capacity substantially inconsistent with them.

Listings Analysis

The administrative law judge found that Myra Q.F.’s impairments did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment, including Listing 12.04 for depressive, bipolar, and related disorders. The judge found no limitation in understanding, remembering, or applying information; moderate limitation in interacting with others; mild limitation in concentration, persistence, or pace; and moderate limitation in adapting or managing herself.

The court held that this analysis was undermined by the errors in evaluating Dr. Nwokeji’s opinions. Because those opinions assessed marked limitations in all relevant mental-functioning areas, the listings analysis also had to be revisited.

Disposition

The court found that the administrative record was complete and contained persuasive proof of disabling mental-health impairments. It further found that the Commissioner had not identified a purpose that would be served by additional administrative proceedings, and the court found none. The court therefore remanded the case for calculation of benefits rather than for further administrative proceedings.

The court granted Myra Q.F.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case for calculation of benefits. The Clerk was directed to enter final judgment consistent with the decision and close the case, subject to a timely application for attorney’s fees and costs.