Mark P. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Steven Mark P. applied for Supplemental Security Income in November 2018, alleging that he became disabled in November 2016. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Angela Banks denied benefits on April 21, 2021. The Administrative Law Judge found that Steven Mark P. had several severe physical and mental impairments but retained the residual functional capacity—the ability to work despite those impairments—to perform light work with physical, mental, and social restrictions. The Administrative Law Judge also found that jobs existed in significant numbers that he could perform. The Appeals Council denied review, making the Administrative Law Judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Steven Mark P. and the Commissioner filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record and the parties’ written submissions.

Medical-Opinion Evidence

The court held that the Administrative Law Judge did not adequately evaluate the opinion of Ahssan Haj-Yehia, a treating provider who had treated Steven Mark P. weekly for more than two years. Mr. Haj-Yehia assessed marked limitations in understanding, remembering, or applying information; interacting with others; and maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace. He also stated that Steven Mark P. could maintain satisfactory attention or concentration less than 75 percent of the time and would miss more than four workdays per month because of his symptoms.

The Administrative Law Judge found Mr. Haj-Yehia’s opinion unpersuasive. The court concluded that the Administrative Law Judge did not sufficiently account for the extended treating relationship, did not recognize important consistency between Mr. Haj-Yehia’s opinion and Dr. Michael Kushner’s consultative psychiatric evaluation, and placed too much weight on Steven Mark P.’s ability to appear appropriate during encounters with supportive mental-health professionals. Dr. Kushner had found several mild-to-marked limitations, including limitations involving social interaction, concentration, work-related decisions, and emotional regulation.

The court also concluded that the Administrative Law Judge improperly relied on selected treatment observations and daily activities without adequately considering the record as a whole. The opinion noted evidence of impaired judgment and insight, irritability, social difficulties, and significant symptoms over time. It explained that the ability to perform basic activities such as shopping, laundry, and personal care does not necessarily establish an ability to work consistently in a competitive job.

Credibility and Remand

The court found the Administrative Law Judge’s assessment of Steven Mark P.’s reported symptoms flawed. Steven Mark P. testified about sleep disturbance, panic attacks, paranoia, depression, low frustration tolerance, aggression toward others, social isolation, and problems with memory and concentration. The court reasoned that the improperly discounted medical opinions supported his reports about social functioning and self-regulation, undermining the Administrative Law Judge’s assessment of those reports.

The court therefore ruled that further administrative proceedings were required. It ordered a proper assessment of the medical evidence, particularly Mr. Haj-Yehia’s opinion and Dr. Kushner’s consultative evaluation, followed by a renewed assessment of Steven Mark P.’s credibility. The court did not itself decide that Steven Mark P. was entitled to benefits.

Disposition

Steven Mark P.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was GRANTED. The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was DENIED. The case was REMANDED for further proceedings, and the Clerk was directed to enter final judgment for Steven Mark P. and close the file.