Menashe F. v. Kijakazi

Background

Menashe F. applied for Supplemental Security Income and Disabled Adult Child benefits in November 2016, alleging disability from birth. The applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Laura Michalec Olszewski denied the applications on December 26, 2019. The Appeals Council denied review, making the Administrative Law Judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The Administrative Law Judge found that Menashe had severe anxiety disorder, obesity, asthma, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and depressive disorder. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Menashe had the residual functional capacity—the ability to work despite medical limitations—to perform work at all exertional levels, subject to restrictions involving stress, task complexity, social interaction, respiratory irritants, and extreme temperatures. Because Menashe had no past relevant work, the Administrative Law Judge determined that other jobs existed in significant numbers that Menashe could perform.

The parties filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). Menashe argued that the Administrative Law Judge improperly evaluated the medical opinion evidence. Menashe also argued that the Commissioner lacked constitutional authority to adjudicate the benefits claim because of a problem with the Commissioner’s appointment.

Medical-opinion analysis

Dr. Eltan Bitter, Menashe’s long-term treating psychologist, diagnosed autism spectrum disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and persistent depressive disorder. Dr. Bitter described problems involving rigidity, executive functioning, social skills, depression, obsessive worries, personal hygiene, completing assignments on time, and decision-making. In a mental residual-functional-capacity assessment, Dr. Bitter found marked limitations in maintaining attention and concentration, completing a normal workweek without psychologically based interruptions, accepting instructions, responding appropriately to criticism from supervisors, and setting realistic goals or making plans independently. He also stated that Menashe would likely be absent from work twice a month because of impairments or treatment.

The Administrative Law Judge gave Dr. Bitter’s opinions some weight, accepting opinions about understanding, memory, and some social functioning but rejecting or discounting the opinions concerning attention, concentration, completing a normal workday, and responding to supervision. The Administrative Law Judge relied in part on Menashe’s extended video gaming, college attendance, part-time work, care for Menashe’s father, and volunteer work.

The court held that this analysis was inadequate. It concluded that the Administrative Law Judge did not properly account for the special value of a treating source’s opinion in a mental-health case, where a long-term treatment relationship may provide information that cannot be obtained from objective testing or a single examination. The court also found that the Administrative Law Judge gave too much weight to the opinions of a consultative examiner who conducted one examination and a state-agency physician who had not examined Menashe and whose opinion was remote in time from the hearing.

The court further held that activities such as video gaming and part-time work with the support of a job coach were not necessarily inconsistent with Dr. Bitter’s assessment that Menashe could not sustain concentration on nonpreferred tasks, maintain a full-time schedule, or respond appropriately to criticism. The court also criticized the Administrative Law Judge’s emphasis on treatment notes and the conservative nature of the treatment history. It ordered reconsideration of Dr. Bitter’s assessment of Menashe’s ability to meet the mental demands of basic work activity on a sustained basis.

Constitutional challenge

Menashe challenged the constitutional authority under which the Commissioner adjudicated the claim, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB. The court stated that numerous courts had rejected similar arguments. Because the court was remanding on the medical-opinion issue, however, it found it unnecessary to resolve the constitutional challenge.

Disposition

The court granted Menashe’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 consistent with the decision. The Clerk was directed to enter final judgment and close the file.