Krystalie M.P. v. Kijakazi

Background

Krystalie M.P. applied for Supplemental Security Income in February 2016 and again in November 2019. The Commissioner of Social Security denied both applications. After an earlier federal-court proceeding was remanded by agreement, the Social Security Administration combined the applications and sent them back for a new hearing.

Administrative Law Judge John Carlton held a hearing on December 11, 2020. On May 24, 2021, he denied the consolidated applications. He found that Krystalie M.P. had severe asthma, an intellectual disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, a depressive disorder, and an anxiety disorder. He determined that she could perform work at all physical exertion levels, subject to limits including an indoor, temperature-controlled environment; no exposure to various pulmonary irritants; simple, routine work without production-rate pressure; limited interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public; and level-one reasoning, math, and language requirements. Because he found that jobs meeting those restrictions existed in significant numbers in the national economy, he concluded that she was not disabled from February 22, 2016, through May 24, 2021.

Krystalie M.P., represented by the Urban Justice Center, asked the district court to reverse the decision. The Commissioner asked the court to uphold it. Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings, a decision based on the existing court record without a trial.

Issues and Analysis

Krystalie M.P. raised two principal arguments: that the Administrative Law Judge improperly considered her school records and that he improperly evaluated the medical-opinion evidence.

The court rejected the challenge to the school records. Those records showed accommodations such as extended testing time, separate testing locations, and having questions and directions read aloud. The Administrative Law Judge considered those records and included restrictions for basic reasoning, math, and language; simple and routine work without production-rate pressure; and limited coworker interaction. The court concluded that this part of the decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate support.

The court found reversible error in the evaluation of the medical opinions. Dr. Howard Tedoff reported a full-scale intelligence quotient of 55 and found significant problems with thinking, reasoning, problem-solving, concentration, consistent pace, and regular attendance. He concluded that Krystalie M.P.’s cognitive problems were significant enough to prevent substantial gainful activity at that time. Dr. Alexandra Gordon-Fitzsimons also found limitations in concentration, pace, interactions, emotional regulation, sustaining a routine, and regular attendance. The Administrative Law Judge gave both opinions only partial weight.

The court determined that the Administrative Law Judge failed to address the consistency between those opinions and evidence that Krystalie M.P. had difficulty maintaining a schedule. She had left school after ninth grade because of excessive absences and had missed medical and mental-health appointments, including appointments that led to discharge from at least one mental-health program. Although the Administrative Law Judge recognized these attendance problems, he mainly relied on treatment records describing periodic progress and no obvious worsening of psychiatric symptoms. The court found that this reasoning did not adequately reconcile the attendance evidence with the two consultative examiners’ similar, more restrictive assessments.

The court also noted that the Administrative Law Judge did not sufficiently explain how he applied the different medical-opinion regulations. The first application was filed before revised regulations took effect, while the second was filed afterward. The court said this uncertainty was not independently decisive because the analysis was inadequate under either standard, but directed the Administrative Law Judge to identify the applicable standard on remand.

Disposition

The court held that the failure to address the medical-opinion evidence concerning regular attendance required a remand for further administrative proceedings. It did not award benefits or decide that Krystalie M.P. was disabled. The court ordered that the proceedings be completed within 120 days of the decision and that, if benefits were again denied and Krystalie M.P. appealed, a final decision be issued within 60 days of the appeal. The court also directed that a different Administrative Law Judge handle the remand.

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones granted Krystalie M.P.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. The Clerk was directed to enter final judgment and close the file.