Latoya S. v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Background

Latoya S. applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging that her disability began on October 1, 2017. The Social Security Administration denied the applications initially and on reconsideration. After two telephonic hearings, Administrative Law Judge Dennis G. Katz denied the claims on October 6, 2021. The Appeals Council later denied review.

The administrative law judge found that Latoya S. had severe impairments including seizure disorder, sciatica, and cervical radiculopathy. He found that she had the capacity to perform sedentary work and some work at the light-exertion level, subject to limitations. He concluded that her additional limitations did not significantly reduce the available unskilled sedentary jobs and denied benefits.

Latoya S. filed this federal action under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, which allows judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. She moved for a remand to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings, and the Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings. A judgment on the pleadings is a decision based on the parties’ written submissions when those submissions show that one side is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Court’s review

The court explained that it could not decide independently whether Latoya S. was disabled. Instead, it reviewed whether the administrative law judge applied the correct legal standards and whether substantial evidence supported the decision. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

The court also explained that, under the regulations applicable to Latoya S.’s claims, the administrative law judge had to explain how persuasive each medical opinion was. The judge was required to explain the opinion’s supportability and consistency, while considering other regulatory factors as well.

Seizure disorder and mental-disorder listings

The court agreed with Latoya S.’s argument that the administrative law judge improperly focused only on Listing 11.02, which addresses epilepsy. The medical record contained repeated references to seizures that were not consistent with epileptic seizures. The record also included an August 2020 reference to conversion disorder, and an electroencephalogram was described as suggestive of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures.

The court noted that the Social Security listings direct adjudicators to evaluate psychogenic non-epileptic seizures and pseudoseizures under the mental-disorder listings rather than the epilepsy listing. Because the administrative law judge found that the seizures were not truly epileptic but did not consider the relevant mental-disorder listings, the court concluded that the analysis was incomplete.

The court also found that the administrative law judge did not adequately address Latoya S.’s testimony about the frequency and seriousness of her seizures or the reports from her family about witnessing them. The judge had stated that her reports were not corroborated by the medical record, but the court found that he did not address the required factors for evaluating a claimant’s statements about symptoms. These errors prevented meaningful review of the disability and residual-functional-capacity conclusions.

Disposition

The court granted Latoya S.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The clerk was directed to enter final judgment and close the file. The opinion did not award benefits or determine that Latoya S. is disabled.