Bey v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Tanya Marie Bey brought this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision that she was not disabled as of January 6, 2020, the date of her Supplemental Security Income application. Bey was represented by counsel. Both sides moved for judgment on the pleadings, meaning they asked the court to decide the case based on the administrative record and the parties’ written submissions.

Bey has been treated for bipolar disorder with psychotic features, schizoaffective disorder, and major depressive disorder. The record described prior psychiatric hospitalizations, medication treatment, outpatient therapy, anxiety, depression, psychosis-related symptoms, concentration and memory problems, fatigue, and difficulty interacting with others. Her treating providers and Social Security consulting psychologists gave opinions concerning her ability to concentrate, maintain pace, attend work regularly, and interact with coworkers and others.

Administrative Decision

Administrative Law Judge Flor Suarez found that Bey had severe impairments but that they did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The Administrative Law Judge found moderate limitations in understanding and applying information, interacting with others, concentrating and maintaining pace, and adapting or managing herself.

The Administrative Law Judge found that Bey retained the capacity to perform work at all exertional levels, subject to limits for simple and routine tasks, low-stress work, occasional interaction with the public, coworkers, and supervisors, and being off task for about five percent of the workday in addition to scheduled breaks. The Administrative Law Judge found that Bey had no past relevant work but could perform jobs such as hand packager, cleaner, and stores laborer. The Administrative Law Judge therefore found that Bey was not disabled during the relevant period. The Appeals Council denied review, making the Administrative Law Judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Bey received a full and fair hearing and that the administrative record was fully developed. It then reviewed whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate.

The court held that the Administrative Law Judge improperly evaluated the evidence concerning concentration, persistence, and pace. The Administrative Law Judge discounted or only partly accepted opinions from treating providers and consulting psychologists, while relying on treatment notes and Bey’s reported daily activities to find only moderate limitations. The court found that the Administrative Law Judge did not adequately discuss the opinions’ supportability or consistency, including the fact that several sources had examined Bey.

The court also found that the Administrative Law Judge misstated and selectively relied on Bey’s testimony. For example, the Administrative Law Judge cited Bey’s ability to prepare meals, but Bey had reported that her daughter helped with cooking because Bey had previously left a burner on and burned food. The court explained that simple activities such as reading, watching television, cleaning, or playing phone games do not necessarily show an ability to maintain concentration and pace in a full-time job. The court further found that the Administrative Law Judge relied too heavily on brief mental-status examinations and overlooked other records documenting impaired concentration, fatigue, and low energy.

The court separately held that the Administrative Law Judge did not adequately evaluate the treating nurse practitioner’s opinion that Bey would miss work approximately three days per month. The Administrative Law Judge did not sufficiently address the opinion’s supportability or explain why the absence of psychiatric hospitalization during part of the relevant period contradicted it. The court noted that mental-health symptoms can fluctuate and that the Administrative Law Judge had not adequately considered Bey’s reported fatigue, crying spells, limited outings, ongoing treatment, medication needs, and other symptoms relevant to attendance.

Finally, the court held that the Administrative Law Judge did not properly analyze Bey’s ability to interact with coworkers. The Administrative Law Judge relied on evidence about Bey’s ability to use public transportation, attend church, and interact with the public, but did not separately analyze coworkers, supervisors, and the general public. The court found that this distinction mattered because the treating provider specifically identified difficulty interacting with coworkers and Bey testified about past problems getting along with coworkers and authority figures.

The court concluded that these errors were not harmless. The vocational expert testified that being off task more than ten percent of the workday or being late or absent more than three times per month would prevent the person from working. The court therefore could not determine that the errors had no effect on the disability decision.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker granted Bey’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case was remanded for reconsideration consistent with the opinion. The Clerk was directed to enter final judgment remanding the case and to close it. The opinion did not award benefits or decide that Bey was disabled.