Nunez Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Aida Altragracia Nunez Garcia applied for Supplemental Security Income on July 8, 2020. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and again on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Angela Banks denied the application on March 1, 2022. The Appeals Council declined review, and Garcia sought review in federal court.

Garcia’s records described longstanding mental-health conditions, including bipolar disorder, panic attacks, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and agoraphobia with panic disorder. She testified that she experienced hallucinations, memory problems, difficulty leaving home, and trouble managing daily activities. She appeared at the hearing with counsel and through a Spanish-language interpreter.

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision

The Administrative Law Judge found that Garcia had severe post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depressive disorder. She determined that Garcia could perform work at all exertional levels, subject to limits including simple and repetitive tasks, low-stress work, no production-rate pace, and only occasional contact with coworkers, supervisors, and the public.

A vocational expert testified that a person with those limits could perform jobs such as cleaner, routing clerk, or automobile detailer. The expert also testified that a person who was off task for more than 20 percent of the workday could not perform those jobs. The expert stated that employers generally would tolerate no more than one absence per month and would not tolerate repeated tardiness.

The parties’ arguments

Garcia argued that the Administrative Law Judge improperly evaluated her treating psychiatrist’s opinion and failed to consider potential absences, time off task, medication side effects, the vocational expert’s testimony, the regulatory criteria for mental impairments, and her statements about her symptoms. The Commissioner argued that the Administrative Law Judge properly evaluated the evidence and that the decision should be affirmed.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the Administrative Law Judge adequately evaluated the treating psychiatrist’s opinion in most respects. Under the regulations applicable to Garcia’s application, a treating doctor’s opinion does not automatically receive controlling weight. Instead, the Administrative Law Judge must evaluate the opinion’s persuasiveness, especially its supportability and consistency with the record. The court found that the Administrative Law Judge explained why she considered the psychiatrist’s more extreme limitations inconsistent with his treatment notes, Garcia’s activities, emergency-room records, and the absence of regular inpatient or emergency treatment.

The court nevertheless held that the Administrative Law Judge did not fully develop the record concerning Garcia’s potential absences. The treating psychiatrist opined that Garcia would be absent from work more than three times per month. The court also noted that consulting examiner Joshua Goldstein described facts that could support significant absences, including hospital stays, an overdose-related hospitalization in Puerto Rico, and recent passive suicidal thoughts and command hallucinations.

The Administrative Law Judge relied on some of Goldstein’s findings about moderate limitations, but did not address how those limitations related to attendance or reconcile them with the vocational expert’s testimony about tolerated absences and time off task. The court also found that the state-agency opinions that Garcia could perform unskilled work on a sustained basis did not resolve the issue because those opinions did not assess the number of possible absences or the amount of time she might be off task.

The court determined that the error was not harmless. Further medical opinions or records about Garcia’s attendance could have changed the vocational expert’s testimony and could have affected whether jobs were available to her.

Disposition

The court granted Garcia’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). The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Garcia. The court did not reach Garcia’s remaining arguments.