Leto v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Kelly Leto sought judicial review under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act after the Social Security Administration denied her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. An administrative law judge found that Leto had several severe mental impairments, including major depressive disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and bipolar disorder. The administrative law judge nevertheless found that she could perform a full range of work at all exertional levels, subject to limits for low-stress work involving simple, routine, and repetitive tasks, few workplace changes, and only occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the administrative law judge found that Leto could perform jobs existing in significant numbers and denied her claims. The Appeals Council denied review.

Leto and the Commissioner filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the parties’ written submissions and the administrative record.

Issues and Analysis

Leto argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the opinions of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Renata Krymkevich; failed to consider the effect of her expected absences; and improperly evaluated the mental-function criteria used in the disability regulations. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge reasonably evaluated the medical opinions and that the residual functional capacity finding was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate.

The court focused on the evaluation of Dr. Krymkevich’s opinions. Under the applicable regulations, the administrative law judge had to explain how he considered an opinion’s supportability—whether the source’s own evidence supported it—and consistency—whether it matched the other evidence in the record.

The court found that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain the supportability analysis. The administrative law judge stated that Dr. Krymkevich’s treatment records did not contain mental-status findings that could objectively support her opinions. But the July 2020 opinion included findings concerning Leto’s soft speech, over-detailed thought process, lowered mood, tearful affect, difficulty staying focused, and fair insight and judgment. Dr. Krymkevich’s later opinions also identified lowered mood, anxious affect, frequent panic attacks, and social withdrawal. The court further noted that some treatment notes recorded the psychiatrist’s own observations, including social withdrawal, depression, social anxiety, and decreased energy.

The court also found an error in the consistency analysis. The administrative law judge described the consultative examiners’ mental-status examinations as essentially unremarkable, but the record included findings such as flat affect, mildly impaired attention and concentration, fair judgment, dysphoric affect, and a sad, angry, and nervous mood. The court also found that the administrative law judge improperly relied on a therapist’s description of Leto’s mental health as “stable.” Stability did not necessarily mean that Leto was functioning well; a person could be stable at a low level of functioning. The court concluded that these errors were not harmless because greater limitations could result in a finding that Leto was unable to work.

Disposition

The court granted Leto’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the action for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and order. Because the court found an error in evaluating the medical opinions, it did not address the parties’ remaining arguments about whether the residual functional capacity finding was supported by substantial evidence. The opinion does not award Leto benefits or determine that she is disabled.