Faure v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Giselle C. Faure applied for Supplemental Security Income on March 25, 2019, alleging disability from mental-health conditions including bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety. Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Angela Banks denied the claim on December 2, 2020. The Appeals Council declined review on January 28, 2022, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative law judge found that Faure had severe impairments of bipolar disorder and depression, but that they did not meet or equal a listed impairment. She determined that Faure could perform simple, routine work that could be learned within 30 days, in a goal-oriented setting with occasional interaction with the public. Based on testimony from a vocational expert, the administrative law judge identified dishwasher, hand packager, and price-marker jobs and found Faure not disabled.

Faure challenged the decision, arguing that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the medical opinions, her statements about her symptoms, and her ability to perform work. Both Faure and the Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to decide the case based on the existing administrative record.

Court’s Analysis

Failure to develop the record. The court held that the administrative law judge had not fully developed the record. The record contained treatment information from Faure’s providers but no functional assessment or medical questionnaire from a treating provider. The available assessments by consulting and reviewing psychologists were also prepared months before the hearing, and the state-agency reviewers appeared not to have considered records from VIP Community Services.

The court emphasized that mental-health conditions can fluctuate. The record showed periods of stability as well as hospitalization, medication noncompliance, unstable housing, worsening symptoms, mood changes, impulsivity, and missed appointments. The administrative law judge did not make reasonable efforts to obtain a treating provider’s functional assessment or a more current assessment. The court also found that the administrative law judge did not obtain sufficient evidence about how often Faure might be off task or absent from work, despite evidence concerning panic attacks, blackouts, medication effects, missed appointments, and difficulty maintaining treatment compliance.

The court further found that the administrative law judge did not address whether Faure could maintain a regular work schedule while attending frequent court-ordered treatment and medical appointments. The judge also did not reconcile Faure’s history of missed appointments and her testimony that she had lost a prior job because of absences.

Evaluation of medical evidence and ability to adapt. The court found that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain why she discounted examining psychologist Seth Sebold’s opinion that Faure had a “moderate to marked” limitation in regulating emotions, controlling behavior, and maintaining well-being. The administrative law judge relied on selected mental-status findings showing cooperative behavior, normal speech, and appropriate affect, but did not address contrary findings such as rushed speech, flat or fair affect, mood lability, impulsivity, noncompliance, psychiatric hospitalization, unstable housing, and a disheveled appearance.

The court described this selective use of evidence as improper because isolated mental-status examinations did not necessarily show how Faure functioned over time. The court also found that the administrative law judge did not adequately consider that Sebold had examined Faure, while the state-agency reviewers relied on only part of the treatment record. The court rejected reliance on activities such as shopping, personal care, cooking, reading, and watching television as sufficient proof that Faure could concentrate or sustain full-time work.

Residual functional capacity. The court found that the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity determination—the finding about the most work Faure could regularly perform—was not supported by substantial evidence. Although the administrative law judge said she found the state-agency consultants’ opinions persuasive, she did not include or explain the consultants’ findings of moderate limitations involving interaction with supervisors and coworkers, responding to criticism, adapting to workplace changes, maintaining concentration, completing a normal workday, and working at a consistent pace.

The administrative law judge limited Faure to occasional interaction with the public but found that she could interact appropriately with supervisors and coworkers. The court found that this conclusion was not supported by the medical opinions or the record. It also found that the administrative law judge did not explain how the moderate limitations affected Faure’s ability to perform simple work or whether they could cause her to be off task more than 10 percent of the workday, a level the vocational expert testified would prevent employment.

Evaluation of Faure’s statements. The court also found error in the treatment of Faure’s statements about anxiety attacks, blackouts, panic attacks, isolation, argumentative behavior, and absences from work. The administrative law judge relied on selected mental-status examinations, reported improvement after hospitalization, and Faure’s mother’s statement that Faure was doing better after a medication change. But the court held that improvement did not necessarily mean Faure’s symptoms were less severe than she described, particularly because mental illness can involve cycles of improvement and deterioration. The administrative law judge therefore did not properly determine whether Faure’s testimony was consistent with the record as a whole.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker granted Faure’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court remanded the case for reconsideration by the administrative law judge consistent with the opinion and directed the Clerk to enter final judgment remanding the case and close the case. The opinion did not direct an award of Supplemental Security Income.