Uht v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Shane Francis Uht applied for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability beginning July 1, 2012. An administrative law judge, Mark Solomon, initially found that Uht was not disabled. The Social Security Appeals Council later remanded the matter because Uht’s representative was not properly advised about a postponement request and Uht appeared by telephone without proper notice. After another hearing, Judge Solomon again denied the applications on March 29, 2021. The Appeals Council denied further review.

Uht then challenged the denial under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The opinion describes extensive evidence concerning depression, anxiety, panic attacks, agoraphobia, social withdrawal, concentration problems, and other mental-health symptoms. The record included treatment records and opinions from several providers, including Gabriel Santisteban, LCSW, and Dr. Kirschtein. Santisteban estimated that Uht would miss more than four workdays per month because of psychiatric symptoms. A vocational expert testified that missing more than about one day per month would prevent competitive employment.

Issues and analysis

Uht raised six challenges to the administrative decision. The court found the following errors:

1. Public transportation and development of the record. The administrative law judge found that Uht could use public transportation, relying partly on older forms and a consultative examination. But Uht later testified that he could not use public transportation because of worsening anxiety and agoraphobia, and treatment records indicated that he needed assistance or friends to accompany him. The court held that these conflicting accounts created a gap in the record that the administrative law judge was required to address.

2. Absences and ability to work. The record raised the possibility that Uht’s psychiatric symptoms would cause frequent absences. The administrative law judge did not address that issue or include it in Uht’s residual functional capacity, meaning his ability to perform sustained work activities. The court held that this was legal error because the vocational expert had testified that excessive absences would eliminate available work.

3. Medical opinions. The administrative law judge found Santisteban’s and Dr. Kirschtein’s opinions unpersuasive. Under the applicable regulations, the judge had to explain the opinions’ supportability—the medical evidence and explanations supporting them—and consistency with the rest of the record. The court found that the judge did not explain supportability and that the consistency finding was not supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that other treatment providers and Uht’s statements supported similar limitations.

4. Mental impairments at step three. At the third step of the disability evaluation, the administrative law judge considers whether the claimant’s impairments meet specified regulatory criteria. The court found that the judge inadequately analyzed the four relevant areas of mental functioning: understanding and applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and adapting or managing oneself. The judge cited large exhibits without identifying specific supporting evidence and did not adequately address substantial conflicting evidence, including provider assessments of marked or greater limitations.

5. Physical exertional capacity. The court upheld the finding that Uht could perform work at all physical exertional levels. Uht had not alleged physical impairments and had stated that he did not have physical issues. The court said this finding did not change the result because the remand was required based on errors involving his nonphysical, or mental, limitations.

6. Grid rules. The court held that the administrative law judge legally erred by using the vocational grid rules as a framework at step five. Uht had no reported exertional limitations, and the grid rules did not direct factual conclusions for a claimant whose limitations were nonexertional. The court stated that this error independently did not change the outcome because of the errors at earlier steps.

Disposition

The court granted Uht’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the Commissioner’s decision for further proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The opinion also states that the case was dismissed, that final judgment was to be entered, and that the case was to be closed. The remand did not itself determine whether Uht is entitled to disability benefits; the opinion requires further administrative proceedings.

Judge

The opinion was written and signed by Ona T. Wang, United States Magistrate Judge.