Conklin v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

James R. Conklin sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. He alleged that he became disabled on April 8, 2017, because of seizures, depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. The administrative law judge found that Conklin had several severe impairments, including a seizure disorder, fibromyalgia, traumatic brain injury, headaches, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The administrative law judge nevertheless found that Conklin could perform a limited range of light work and could perform other jobs identified by a vocational expert.

Conklin and the Commissioner filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the pleadings and the administrative record. Conklin argued that the administrative law judge failed to explain how she evaluated the supportability and consistency of psychologist Alex Gindes’s opinion. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge properly applied the governing regulations and that substantial evidence supported the denial.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the applicable Social Security regulations require an administrative law judge to explain how she considered the supportability and consistency of each medical opinion. Supportability concerns how well the medical source’s own findings and explanations support the opinion. Consistency concerns how well the opinion fits with the entire record.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge did not satisfy those requirements when evaluating Dr. Gindes’s opinion. The administrative law judge stated only that Gindes’s extreme limitations were unsupported by the objective medical evidence and treatment record and were inconsistent with Conklin’s daily activities. The court found those statements too general because they did not identify specific evidence, did not explain how Gindes’s own findings supported or failed to support his conclusions, and did not explain why Conklin’s daily activities were inconsistent with the opinion.

The court also noted that parts of the record appeared consistent with Gindes’s opinion. For example, another doctor had concluded that Conklin’s seizures, post-traumatic stress symptoms, and cognitive problems made him unable to work. The court further observed that Gindes had considered daily activities similar to those the administrative law judge relied on, such as dressing, bathing, grooming, occasional cleaning, doing laundry, and shopping with his spouse. The administrative law judge did not explain why those activities contradicted Gindes’s conclusions.

The court found that the error was not harmless. Gindes had identified extreme limitations in understanding complex instructions and making work-related decisions, as well as marked limitations involving interaction with others, concentration, pace, regular attendance, emotional regulation, behavior, and maintaining well-being. Those limitations were not included in the administrative law judge’s assessment of Conklin’s ability to work or in the hypothetical used to identify available jobs. The court therefore concluded that proper consideration of the opinion could have led to a different work-capacity assessment and possibly a finding of disability.

Disposition

Judge James L. Cott granted Conklin’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. The Clerk was directed to mark Conklin’s motion as “granted,” mark the Commissioner’s motion as “denied,” and enter judgment for Conklin. The opinion did not award benefits or decide the ultimate question of whether Conklin is disabled.