Mosley v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Deborah Mosley filed concurrent applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II and supplemental security income under Title XVI on November 14, 2016. She alleged that she became unable to work on April 18, 2016. After the applications were denied initially, Mosley appeared with counsel at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Dina R. Loewy. The administrative law judge denied the claims on June 4, 2019, and the Appeals Council denied review on August 4, 2020.

The administrative law judge found that Mosley had mood disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety. The judge found moderate limitations in the four areas used to evaluate certain mental impairments, but concluded that Mosley could perform work at all physical exertion levels with restrictions. Those restrictions included simple, routine, repetitive tasks; a low-stress environment; limited decision-making and workplace changes; no public interaction; only occasional interaction with supervisors and coworkers; no fast-paced production or conveyor-belt work; and no concentrated exposure to hazardous machinery or unprotected heights. The judge found that Mosley could not return to her prior work as a parking attendant but could perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Mosley described panic attacks, difficulty concentrating, forgetting medication and appointments, difficulty traveling, and avoidance of crowds and social interaction. Several treating providers reported limitations related to anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, agoraphobia, and claustrophobia, and stated that she could not work or could not use public transportation. A consultative psychologist found mostly mild or no limitations, and a state-agency psychologist found only mild, non-severe limitations.

Issue and Analysis

Because Mosley filed her claim before March 27, 2017, the treating-physician rule applied. Under that rule, an administrative law judge generally must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported by medically acceptable evidence and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. If the judge gives the opinion less than controlling weight, the judge must give good reasons and consider factors including the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; supporting medical evidence; consistency with the record; and the provider’s specialty.

The administrative law judge gave little weight to the opinions of Mosley’s treating providers, including Elizabeth Chapman, Erin Goss, Michael Dowling, Maritza Casillas, and Babe Garais. The judge stated that the providers had not supplied an in-depth function-by-function analysis and that their opinions were inconsistent with the overall evidence.

The court held that this explanation was inadequate. A function-by-function analysis was not one of the factors required under the treating-physician rule. The administrative law judge also made a blanket assessment rather than evaluating each treating provider’s opinion separately. As a result, the judge did not adequately address the providers’ treatment relationships, specialties, or the length and nature of their treatment of Mosley. The court also found that the administrative law judge did not explain how cited normal examination findings were inconsistent with the treating providers’ opinions and failed to address contemporaneous treatment notes that supported those opinions.

Disposition

Judge Ona T. Wang granted Mosley’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The court remanded the case for further proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at ECF 26. The order did not award disability benefits or supplemental security income.