Favata v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner, No. 1:2022cv00552 - Document 9 (D.N.H. 2023)
Court Description: ///MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 6 Motion to Reverse Decision of Commissioner; denying 8 Motion to Affirm Decision of Commissioner. For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner's motion to affirm (Doc. 8) is denied. Favata's motion to reverse (Doc. 6) is granted, the ALJ's decision is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. So Ordered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro.(jwb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Favata v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner Doc. 9 U N I T E D S T AT E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T O F N E W H AM P S H I R E C a it lin F a v a t a v. Ca se No. 1:22-cv-00552-P B Opin ion No. 2023 DNH 148 Kilo lo K ija k a z i, P h .D ., P .S .W. Ac t in g C o m m i s s io n e r , S o c ia l S e c u r it y Ad m in is t r a t io n ME MO R AN D U M AN D O R D E R Ca it lin F a va t a ch a llen ges t h e Socia l Secu r it y Adm in ist r a t ion ’s den ia l of h er a pplica t ion for disa bilit y in su r a n ce ben efit s u n der 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Sh e a r gu es t h a t t h e Adm in ist r a t ive La w J u dge (ALJ ) fa iled t o pr oper ly eva lu a t e m edica l opin ion eviden ce wh en det er m in in g F a va t a ’s r esidu a l fu n ct ion a l ca pa cit y (RF C), wh ich in t u r n a ffect ed h er fin a l det er m in a t ion a s t o F a va t a ’s disa bilit y st a t u s. Th e Com m ission er seeks a n or der a ffir m in g t h e ALJ ’s decision . F or t h e followin g r ea son s, I gr a n t F a va t a ’s m ot ion a n d den y t h e Com m ission er ’s m ot ion . I. A. B AC KG R O U N D P r oced u r a l F a ct s F a va t a is a t h ir t y-on e-yea r -old wom a n wh o h a s com plet ed som e college cla sses a n d wor ked m ost r ecen t ly a s a deliver y per son for In st a ca r t . Tr . 46. Sh e a pplied for disa bilit y ben efit s u n der Tit le II of t h e Socia l Secu r it y Act in Dockets.Justia.com Decem ber 2019, iden t ifyin g n u m er ou s ph ysica l a n d m en t a l a ilm en t s—a lower ba ck t u m or , fibr om ya lgia , ju ven ile r h eu m a t oid a r t h r it is, depr ession , a n xiet y disor der , pa n ic disor der , ca r pa l t u n n el syn dr om e, ea r ly on set m en opa u se, m igr a in es, a ddict ion disor der , a n d a lower ba ck in ju r y fr om a fa ll—t h a t lim it h er a bilit y t o wor k. Tr . 74. Sh e la t er a m en ded h er a lleged disa bilit y on set da t e t o J a n u a r y 2017, Tr . 13, a n d a dded a n a ddit ion a l dia gn osis of bor der lin e per son a lit y disor der , Tr . 87-88. Disa bilit y Det er m in a t ion Ser vices (DDS) den ied F a va t a ’s in it ia l cla im in Ma r ch 2021, Tr . 74-86, a n d h er r equ est for r econ sider a t ion t h a t J u n e, Tr . 87-98. F a va t a t h en r equ est ed a h ea r in g befor e a n ALJ , wh ich wa s h eld t eleph on ica lly in Novem ber 2021. Tr . 38-72. Aft er h ea r in g t est im on y fr om F a va t a a n d a voca t ion a l exper t (VE ), t h e ALJ det er m in ed t h a t F a va t a wa s n ot disa bled a n d den ied h er cla im . Tr . 31. Th e Appea ls Cou n cil t h en den ied h er r equ est for r eview in Novem ber , r en der in g t h e ALJ ’s decision t h e fin a l decision of t h e Com m ission er . Tr . 1. B. Me d ic a l E v id e n c e a n d AL J D e t e r m i n a t io n Th e ALJ followed t h e t ypica l “five-st ep sequ en t ia l eva lu a t ion pr ocess” for det er m in in g wh et h er a n in dividu a l qu a lifies for disa bilit y ben efit s a s r equ ir ed by 20 C.F .R. § 404.1520. At t h e fir st st ep, t h e ALJ con clu ded t h a t F a va t a “h a [d] n ot en ga ged in su bst a n t ia l ga in fu l a ct ivit y sin ce t h e a m en ded a lleged on set da y of J a n u a r y 1, 2017.” Tr . 15; see § 404.1520(a )(4)(i). At st ep 2 t wo, sh e det er m in ed t h a t sever a l of F a va t a ’s dia gn oses—h er lower ba ck t u m or , fibr om ya lgia , ju ven ile r h eu m a t oid a r t h r it is, depr ession , a n xiet y, per son a lit y disor der , m igr a in es, a n d su bst a n ce a bu se—con st it u t ed “sever e im pa ir m en t s” u n der 20 C.F .R. § 404.1520(c), wh ile h er ca r pa l t u n n el syn dr om e, obst r u ct ive sleep a pn ea , a n d ea r ly on set m en opa u se did n ot . Tr . 16; see § 404.1520(a )(4)(ii). At t h e t h ir d st ep, t h e ALJ con clu ded t h a t F a va t a “[did] n ot h a ve a n im pa ir m en t or com bin a t ion of im pa ir m en t s t h a t m eet s or m edica lly equ a ls t h e sever it y” of a n y of t h e im pa ir m en t s en u m er a t ed in t h e a gen cy’s r egu la t ion s. Tr . 17; see § 404.1520(a )(4)(iii); 20 C.F .R., P a r t 404, Su bpa r t P , Appen dix 1. As a pa r t of h er a n a lysis, t h e ALJ con sider ed F a va t a ’s m en t a l im pa ir m en t s a n d fou n d t h a t t h ey on ly “m oder a t e[ly] lim it [ed]” h er m en t a l fu n ct ion in g in fou r en u m er a t ed a r ea s, k n own a s t h e “B” cr it er ia : (1) “u n der st a n din g, r em em ber in g, or a pplyin g in for m a t ion ”; (2) “in t er a ct in g wit h ot h er s”; (3) “con cen t r a t in g, per sist in g or m a in t a in in g pa ce”; a n d (4) “a da pt in g or m a n a gin g on eself.” Tr . 18-19. Beca u se t h ese lim it a t ion s wer e n eit h er “m a r ked” n or “ext r em e,” t h e ALJ con clu ded t h a t F a va t a ’s m en t a l im pa ir m en t s did n ot m eet or m edica lly equ a l t h e disa bilit y list in gs for depr essive, bipola r a n d r ela t ed disor der s; a n xiet y a n d obsessive-com pu lsive disor der s; or per son a lit y a n d im pu lse-con t r ol disor der s. Tr . 18-19; see 20 C.F .R., P a r t 404, Su bpa r t P , Appen dix 1, §§ 12.04, 12.06, 12.08. 3 Th e ALJ t h en pr oceeded t o t h e fou r t h st ep of h er a n a lysis, wh ich r equ ir ed h er t o det er m in e wh et h er F a va t a h a d t h e RF C t o per for m t h e r equ ir em en t s of h er pa st r eleva n t wor k. Tr . 29; see § 404.1520(a )(4)(iv). In det er m in in g F a va t a ’s RF C, t h e ALJ r elied on F a va t a ’s own st a t em en t s a s well a s m edica l opin ion eviden ce, in clu din g, a s r eleva n t t o t h is a ppea l, opin ion s by t wo st a t e a gen cy psych ologica l con su lt a n t s: La u r a La n der m a n , P h .D., wh o pr ovided h er opin ion du r in g F a va t a ’s in it ia l cla im befor e DDS, a n d Cr a ig St en slie, P h .D. wh o wa s con su lt ed du r in g r econ sider a t ion of F a va t a ’s cla im . Tr . 19-29. Dr . La n der m a n a ssessed F a va t a ’s m en t a l lim it a t ion s bot h wit h r espect t o t h e B cr it er ia , wh ich a r e u sed on ly a t st eps t wo a n d t h r ee, a n d F a va t a ’s Men t a l Residu a l F u n ct ion a l Ca pa cit y (MRF C), wh ich is u sed a t st eps fou r a n d five. See Tr . 78-79, 82. As t o t h e B cr it er ia , Dr . La n der m a n det er m in ed t h a t F a va t a wa s m oder a t ely lim it ed in a ll fou r cr it er ia , in clu din g h er a bilit y t o “u n der st a n d, r em em ber , or a pply in for m a t ion .” Tr . 78-79. Th en , in det er m in in g F a va t a ’s MRF C, sh e con clu ded t h a t F a va t a wa s n ot sign ifica n t ly lim it ed in h er a bilit y t o u n der st a n d a n d r em em ber “ver y sh or t a n d sim ple in st r u ct ion s” bu t t h a t sh e wa s m oder a t ely lim it ed in h er a bilit y t o u n der st a n d a n d r em em ber “det a iled” in st r u ct ion s. Tr . 82. Sh e t h en st a t ed in t h e n a r r a t ive por t ion of h er MRF C r epor t t h a t F a va t a wa s “[a ]ble t o 4 u n der st a n d[,] r eca ll[,] a n d ca r r y ou t sh or t a n d sim ple in st r u ct ion s bu t n ot m or e det a iled on es on a con sist en t ba sis.” Tr . 82. Dr . St en slie a gr eed wit h Dr . La n der m a n t h a t F a va t a wa s m oder a t ely lim it ed in t h r ee of t h e fou r B cr it er ia , bu t h e con clu ded t h a t sh e wa s on ly m ildly lim it ed in h er a bilit y t o “[u ]n der st a n d, r em em ber , or a pply in for m a t ion .” Tr . 90. H e a lso differ ed fr om Dr . La n der m a n in a ssessin g F a va t a ’s MRF C, fin din g t h a t F a va t a exper ien ced n o lim it a t ion s in h er u n der st a n din g a n d r em em ber in g a n d wa s “a ble t o m a n a ge a ll in st r u ct ion s.” Tr . 94-95. Th e ALJ discu ssed t h e fin din gs of Dr . La n der m a n a n d Dr . St en slie in a sin gle pa r a gr a ph of h er decision . See Tr . 25-26. Sh e bega n by st a t in g t h a t t h ey a gr eed t h a t F a va t a wa s m oder a t ely lim it ed wit h r espect t o a ll fou r B cr it er ia , t h ou gh sh e la t er qu a lified t h a t st a t em en t by n ot in g t h a t Dr . St en slie h a d “ch a n ged t h e lim it a t ion in u n der st a n din g, r em em ber in g, a n d a pplyin g in for m a t ion t o m ild wit h n o lim it a t ion s in u n der st a n din g a n d r em em ber in g[.]” Tr . 25-26. Appa r en t ly t r a ckin g Dr . La n der m a n ’s n a r r a t ive r espon se on t h e MRF C for m , t h e ALJ n ext n ot ed, wit h ou t a t t r ibu t in g t h e st a t em en t t o eit h er Dr . La n der m a n or Dr . St en slie, t h a t F a va t a wa s “a ble t o u n der st a n d[,] r eca ll[,] a n d ca r r y ou t sh or t a n d sim ple in st r u ct ion s bu t n ot m or e det a iled on es on a con sist en t ba sis.” Tr . 25. Sh e t h en con clu ded, wit h ou t a ddr essin g t h e in con sist en cies bet ween t h e t wo exper t ’s MRF C opin ion s, t h a t 5 “[t ]h e u n der sign ed fin ds t h ese pr ior a dm in ist r a t ive psych ologica l opin ion s a r e per su a sive, a s t h ey a r e con sist en t wit h t h e r ecor d a s a wh ole.” Tr . 26. Aft er con sider in g a ll of t h e eviden ce in t h e r ecor d, t h e ALJ det er m in ed t h a t F a va t a h a d t h e RF C t o per for m ligh t wor k wit h cer t a in lim it a t ion s. Tr . 19. Wit h r espect t o h er MRF C, t h e ALJ con clu ded t h a t F a va t a wa s “ca pa ble of u n der st a n din g, r em em ber in g, a n d ca r r yin g ou t sim ple, r ou t in e t a sks over a t ypica l wor kda y a n d wor k week in a set t in g wit h n o fa st pa ced or h igh pr odu ct ion st a n da r ds.”1 Tr . 19. Th e ALJ t h en u sed h er RF C fin din g a n d t est im on y by t h e VE t o det er m in e t h a t F a va t a cou ld n ot per for m h er pa st r eleva n t wor k, Tr . 29, a n d sh e pr oceeded t o t h e fift h st ep of h er a n a lysis. At st ep five, a n ALJ m u st det er m in e wh et h er t h er e a r e jobs in t h e n a t ion a l econ om y t h a t t h e cla im a n t ca n per for m . § 404.1520(a )(4)(v). Th e ALJ a ddr essed t h is issu e by a skin g t h e VE wh et h er su ch jobs exist ed for a cla im a n t of F a va t a ’s a ge wit h t h e sa m e edu ca t ion , wor k exper ien ce, a n d RF C. Tr . 69-70. Th e ALJ in st r u ct ed t h e VE t o a ssu m e a h ypot h et ica l cla im a n t wh o wa s “ca pa ble of u n der st a n din g, r em em ber in g, a n d ca r r yin g ou t sim ple[,] r ou t in e t a sks over a t ypica l wor kda y a n d wor k week[.]” Tr . 70. Usin g t h ese pa r a m et er s, t h e VE t est ified t h a t su ch a n in dividu a l cou ld wor k a s (1) a 1 Alt h ou gh it is n ot r eleva n t t o t h e cu r r en t a ppea l, t h e ALJ a lso fou n d t h a t F a va t a wa s “lim it ed t o occa sion a l, su per ficia l in t er a ct ion wit h pu blic a n d cowor ker s, a n d r ou t in e in t er a ct ion s wit h su per visor s. Sh e ca n a da pt t o sim ple ch a n ges in r ou t in e.” Tr . 19. 6 libr a r y pa ge; (2) a m er ch a n dise m a r ker ; a n d (3) a n office h elper , ea ch of wh ich exist in t h e n a t ion a l econ om y in sign ifica n t n u m ber s. Tr . 70. In givin g t h is a n swer , t h e VE n ot ed t h a t a ll t h r ee jobs a r e u n skilled a n d on ly r equ ir e t h e a bilit y t o do ligh t ph ysica l wor k . Tr . 70. E a ch posit ion a lso r equ ir es t h e a bilit y t o en ga ge in “Level 2” r ea son in g. 2 P a ge, Dict ion a r y of Occu pa t ion a l Tit le (DICOT) 249.687-014, 1991 WL 672351; Ma r ker , DICOT 209.587-034, 1991 WL 671802; Office H elper , DICOT 239.567-010, 1991 WL 672232. Th e ALJ t h en a dopt ed t h e VE ’s t est im on y a n d con clu ded t h a t F a va t a wa s n ot disa bled. Tr . 30-31. II. S T AN D AR D O F R E VI E W I a m a u t h or ized t o r eview t h e plea din gs su bm it t ed by t h e pa r t ies a n d t h e a dm in ist r a t ive r ecor d a n d en t er a ju dgm en t a ffir m in g, m odifyin g, or r ever sin g t h e “fin a l decision ” of t h e Com m ission er . See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Th a t r eview is lim it ed, h owever , “t o det er m in in g wh et h er t h e [Com m ission er ] u sed t h e pr oper lega l st a n da r ds a n d fou n d fa ct s [ba sed] u pon t h e pr oper qu a n t u m of eviden ce.” Wa r d v. Com m ’r of Soc. Sec., 211 F .3d 652, 655 (1st Cir . 2000). I defer t o t h e Com m ission er ’s fin din gs of fa ct , so lon g a s t h ose fin din gs a r e su ppor t ed by su bst a n t ia l eviden ce. Id. Su bst a n t ia l eviden ce 2 Level 2 r ea son in g r equ ir es t h e a bilit y t o “[a ]pply com m on sen se u n der st a n din g t o ca r r y ou t det a iled bu t u n in volved wr it t en or or a l in st r u ct ion s.” DICOT, Appen dix C. 7 exist s “if a r ea son a ble m in d, r eviewin g t h e eviden ce in t h e r ecor d a s a wh ole, cou ld a ccept it a s a dequ a t e t o su ppor t [h er ] con clu sion .” Ir la n da Or t iz v. Sec’y of H ea lt h & H u m a n Ser vs., 955 F .2d 765, 769 (1st Cir . 1991) (per cu r ia m ) (qu ot in g Rodr igu ez v. Sec’y of H ea lt h & H u m a n Ser vs., 647 F .2d 218, 222 (1st Cir . 1981)). If t h e Com m ission er ’s fa ct u a l fin din gs a r e su ppor t ed by su bst a n t ia l eviden ce, t h ey a r e con clu sive, even wh er e t h e r ecor d “a r gu a bly cou ld su ppor t a differ en t con clu sion .” Id. a t 770. Th e Com m ission er ’s fin din gs a r e n ot con clu sive, h owever , “wh en der ived by ign or in g eviden ce, m isa pplyin g t h e la w, or ju dgin g m a t t er s en t r u st ed t o exper t s.” Ngu yen v. Ch a t er , 172 F .3d 31, 35 (1st Cir . 1999) (per cu r ia m ). “Issu es of cr edibilit y a n d t h e dr a win g of per m issible in fer en ce fr om eviden t ia r y fa ct s a r e t h e pr im e r espon sibilit y of t h e Com m ission er , a n d t h e r esolu t ion of con flict s in t h e eviden ce a n d t h e det er m in a t ion of t h e u lt im a t e qu est ion of disa bilit y is for h er , n ot for t h e doct or s or for t h e cou r t s.” P u r dy v. Ber r yh ill, 887 F .3d 7, 13 (1st Cir . 2018) (clea n ed u p). III. AN AL YS I S F a va t a a r gu es on a ppea l t h a t t h e ALJ er r ed in fa ilin g t o expla in h er decision t o pa r t ia lly a dopt Dr . La n der m a n ’s MRF C fin din g wit h ou t cr edit in g h er det er m in a t ion t h a t F a va t a cou ld u n der st a n d, r em em ber , a n d ca r r y ou t “sh or t ” in st r u ct ion s “bu t n ot m or e det a iled on es on a con sist en t ba sis.” Doc. 68 1 a t 7. Th e Com m ission er a r gu es in r espon se t h a t t h e ALJ wa s “n ot r equ ir ed t o a dopt ever y lim it a t ion . . . t h a t sh e fou n d per su a sive, a n d su bst a n t ia l eviden ce su ppor t s h er a ssessm en t of a n RF C t h a t did n ot in clu de a r est r ict ion t o ‘sh or t ’ in st r u ct ion s.” Doc. 8 a t 2. Addit ion a lly, t h e Com m ission er a lleges t h a t , even if t h e ALJ er r ed by ign or in g Dr . La n der m a n ’s opin ion t h a t F a va t a cou ld on ly u n der st a n d, r em em ber , a n d ca r r y ou t “sh or t ” in st r u ct ion s, t h e er r or wa s in con sequ en t ia l beca u se it did n ot “m a t er ia lly ch a n ge t h e ou t com e.” Id. I a gr ee wit h F a va t a a n d fin d t h a t t h e ALJ er r ed by om it t in g a n essen t ia l pa r t of Dr . La n der m a n ’s MRF C opin ion fr om F a va t a ’s RF C wit h ou t expla n a t ion or su fficien t eviden t ia r y su ppor t . An ALJ is r espon sible for det er m in in g a cla im a n t ’s RF C ba sed on “a ll t h e r eleva n t eviden ce” in t h e r ecor d. § 416.945(a )(1). Th is in clu des “m edica l opin ion s a n d pr ior a dm in ist r a t ive m edica l fin din gs.” § 404.1520c(b). Wh en con sider in g t h is eviden ce, a n ALJ n eed n ot “defer or give a n y specific eviden t ia r y weigh t , in clu din g con t r ollin g weigh t , t o a n y m edica l opin ion (s) or pr ior a dm in ist r a t ive m edica l fin din g(s), in clu din g t h ose fr om [a cla im a n t ’s] m edica l sou r ces.” § 404.1520c(a ). Sh e m u st in st ea d eva lu a t e t h e r ela t ive per su a siven ess of t h e m edica l opin ion s a n d pr ior a dm in ist r a t ive m edica l fin din gs ba sed on t h eir (1) “[s]u ppor t a bilit y,” (2) “[c]on sist en cy” wit h ot h er r ecor d eviden ce, (3) “[r ]ela t ion sh ip wit h t h e cla im a n t ,” (4) “[s]pecia liza t ion ” of t h e m edica l sou r ce, a n d (5) “[o]t h er fa ct or s” t h a t “t en d t o su ppor t or 9 con t r a dict ” t h e eviden ce, su ch a s t h e sou r ce’s “fa m ilia r it y wit h t h e ot h er eviden ce” in t h e r ecor d or “u n der st a n din g” of r eleva n t “policies a n d eviden t ia r y r equ ir em en t s.” § 404.1520c(b)-(c). H owever , sh e is gen er a lly on ly r equ ir ed t o “expla in h ow [sh e] con sider ed t h e su ppor t a bilit y a n d con sist en cy fa ct or s.” § 404.1520c(b)(2) (n ot in g t h a t a n ALJ “m a y, bu t [is] n ot r equ ir ed t o, expla in h ow [sh e] con sider ed” t h e r em a in in g t h r ee fa ct or s). An ALJ ’s RF C det er m in a t ion m u st a lso “pr ovide a clea r expla n a t ion for it s eviden t ia r y ba sis a n d r ea son s for r eject in g m edica l sou r ce opin ion s.” H yn es v. Ba r n h a r t , 379 F . Su pp. 2d 220, 224 (D.N.H . 2004); see a lso F a r gn oli v. Ma ssa n a r i, 247 F .3d 34, 41 (3d Cir . 2001) (“Mor eover , t h e ALJ ’s fin din g of r esidu a l fu n ct ion a l ca pa cit y m u st ‘be a ccom pa n ied by a clea r a n d sa t isfa ct or y explica t ion of t h e ba sis on wh ich it r est s.’”) (qu ot in g Cot t er v. H a r r is, 642 F .2d 700, 704 (3d Cir . 1981)); Cliffor d v. Apfel, 227 F .3d 863, 874 (7t h Cir . 2000) (“F or m ea n in gfu l a ppella t e r eview, h owever , we m u st be a ble t o t r a ce t h e ALJ ’s pa t h of r ea son in g.”). An d a lt h ou gh “a n ALJ is n ot r equ ir ed t o ‘r econ cile explicit ly ever y con flict in g sh r ed of m edica l t est im on y,’” sh e n on et h eless “m u st expla in wh y a m edica l opin ion wa s n ot a dopt ed if t h e RF C a ssessm en t con flict s wit h it .” Kyle L.C. v. Com m ’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-CV6097S, 2023 WL 1858079, a t *5 (W.D.N .Y. F eb. 9, 2023) (qu ot in g Diogu a r di v. Com m ’r of Soc. Sec., 445 F . Su pp. 2d 288, 297 (W.D.N .Y. 2006)). Mor eover , “[a ]n ALJ is pr oh ibit ed fr om ‘pla yin g doct or ’ in t h e sen se t h a t ‘a n ALJ m a y 10 n ot su bst it u t e h is own ju dgem en t for com pet en t m edica l opin ion .’” Ka r en Bet h L. v. Com m ’r of Soc. Sec., 521 F . Su pp. 3d 280, 285 (W.D.N.Y. 2021) (qu ot in g Qu in t o v. Ber r yh ill, No. 3:17-cv-00024, 2017 WL 6017931, a t *12 (D. Con n . Dec. 1, 2017)). In t h e pr esen t ca se, I ca n n ot det er m in e wh et h er t h e ALJ pr oper ly eva lu a t ed t h e exper t eviden ce t h a t bea r s on F a va t a ’s MRF C beca u se t h e ALJ fa iled t o su fficien t ly expla in h ow sh e a r r ived a t h er RF C det er m in a t ion . Alt h ou gh Dr . La n der m a n a n d Dr . St en slie su bst a n t ia lly disa gr eed over F a va t a ’s lim it a t ion s in h er u n der st a n din g a n d m em or y, t h e ALJ fou n d bot h opin ion s cr edible wit h ou t n ot in g t h a t t h ey wer e in con flict wit h r espect t o F a va t a ’s MRF C. 3 Th e ALJ a lso fa iled t o a ckn owledge t h e fa ct t h a t sh e on ly pa r t ia lly a dopt ed Dr . La n der m a n ’s MRF C fin din gs, a n d sh e fa iled t o cit e t o a n y cou n t er va ilin g exper t opin ion t h a t cou ld expla in a decision t o a dopt som e 3 Alt h ou gh t h e ALJ did n ot e t h a t Dr . La n der m a n a n d Dr . St en slie disa gr eed over h ow on e of t h e fou r B cr it er ia sh ou ld be a ssessed, t h a t disa gr eem en t wa s in con sequ en t ia l t o t h e ALJ ’s RF C det er m in a t ion beca u se “t h e lim it a t ion s iden t ified in t h e ‘pa r a gr a ph B’ . . . cr it er ia a r e n ot a n RF C a ssessm en t bu t a r e u sed t o r a t e t h e sever it y of m en t a l im pa ir m en t (s) a t st eps 2 a n d 3 of t h e sequ en t ia l eva lu a t ion pr ocess.” SSR 96-8p, 61 F ed. Reg. 34474, 34477 (J u ly 2, 1996). Th e ALJ a lso n ot ed Dr . St en slie’s con clu sion t h a t F a va t a exper ien ced n o lim it a t ion s in u n der st a n din g a n d r em em ber in g, bu t sh e discu ssed t h a t fin din g wh en expla in in g t h e disa gr eem en t bet ween t h e t wo exper t s over t h e B cr it er ia , a n d sh e n ever a ck n owledged t h e fa ct t h a t Dr . St en slie’s fin din g on t h a t poin t wa s in con flict wit h Dr . La n der m a n ’s MRF C det er m in a t ion . See Tr . 26. 11 bu t n ot a ll of Dr . La n der m a n ’s opin ion . Wit h ou t su ch expla n a t ion s, I a m in n o posit ion t o det er m in e wh et h er t h e ALJ ’s decision wa s gr ou n ded in su fficien t eviden ce. 4 Th e Com m ission er is cor r ect t h a t t h e ALJ wa s “n ot r equ ir ed t o explicit ly a dopt Dr . La n der m a n ’s r ecom m en da t ion ” ver ba t im sim ply beca u se t h e ALJ fou n d h er opin ion per su a sive. Doc. 8 a t 6; see Dim a m br o v. U.S. Soc. Sec. Adm in ., 2018 DNH 004, 2018 WL 301090, a t *4, 8 (D.N .H . J a n . 5, 2018) (expla in in g t h a t a n ALJ m u st “r esolve[] con flict s in t h e eviden ce” bu t is n ot “‘r equ ir ed t o in cor por a t e ver ba t im ’ t h ose fu n ct ion a l lim it a t ion s h e ch ooses t o a dopt ”) (qu ot in g Win dsor v. Ber r yh ill, No. 15-cv-391, 2017 WL 1147465, a t *4 (M.D. Ala . Ma r . 27, 2017)). H owever , t h e ALJ wa s obliga t ed t o pr ovide su fficien t r ea son in g t o a llow a r eviewin g cou r t t o det er m in e wh et h er t h a t decision is su ppor t ed by su bst a n t ia l eviden ce. See Du m on t v. Ber r yh ill, No. 16-11502, 2017 WL 6559758, a t *7 (D. Ma ss. Dec. 22, 2017) (“Th e ALJ m a y 4 Th e Com m ission er , wh ile u r gin g m e t o “fin d t h a t su bst a n t ia l eviden ce su ppor t s [t h e ALJ ’s] decision ,” Doc. 8 a t 5, fa ils t o cit e t o a n y ot h er m edica l eviden ce t o bolst er h er a r gu m en t . Upon r eview of t h e r ecor d, t h e ALJ fou n d t h e opin ion of P h ilip Robbin s, P h .D., a psych ologica l con su lt a t ive m edica l exa m in er , “gen er a lly per su a sive.” Tr . 26-27. H owever , Dr . Robbin s m er ely r epor t ed t h a t F a va t a ’s “com pr eh en sion skills wer e good” a n d t h a t h e “n ever n eeded t o expla in t h in gs fu r t h er t o h er ”; h e did n ot opin e on t h e specific len gt h or level of com plexit y of in st r u ct ion s t h a t F a va t a wa s a ble t o u n der st a n d. Tr . 710. As su ch , h is opin ion does n ot con flict wit h Dr . La n der m a n ’s m en t a l RF C fin din g a n d does n ot con st it u t e cou n t er va ilin g eviden ce t o su ppor t t h e devia t ion . 12 h a ve r ea son s for a ccept in g cer t a in lim it a t ion s wh ile r eject in g ot h er s, bu t h e is r equ ir ed t o ‘expla in wh y h e r eject ed som e lim it a t ion s con t a in ed in a n RF C a ssessm en t fr om a m edica l sou r ce wh ile a ppea r in g t o a dopt ot h er lim it a t ion s con t a in ed in t h e a ssessm en t .’”) (qu ot in g Wa t kin s v. Ber r yh ill, No. 3:16-cv30117, 2017 WL 4365158, a t *11 (D. Ma ss. Sept . 29, 2017)). H er e, wit h ou t a n y in sigh t a s t o wh y Dr . La n der m a n ’s fin din g t h a t F a va t a cou ld u n der st a n d a n d r em em ber on ly “sh or t a n d sim ple in st r u ct ion s bu t n ot m or e det a iled on es on a con sist en t ba sis” wa s om it t ed fr om t h e RF C det er m in a t ion , t h a t t a sk is n ot fea sible. Not wit h st a n din g t h e Com m ission er ’s a r gu m en t t o t h e con t r a r y, t h e ALJ ’s fa ilu r e t o expla in wh y sh e did n ot fu lly a dopt Dr . La n der m a n ’s MRF C opin ion wa s n ot in con sequ en t ia l. Beca u se t h e ALJ a sk ed t h e VE t o a ssu m e t h a t F a va t a wa s lim it ed t o “sim ple[,] r ou t in e t a sks” bu t n ot a lso “sh or t ” t a sks, h e pr oper ly det er m in ed t h a t F a va t a cou ld per for m Level 2 jobs. See, e.g., La wr en ce v. Sa u l, 941 F .3d 140, 143 (4t h Cir . 2019) (fin din g n o “in con sist en cy” bet ween a n RF C lim it ed t o “sim ple, r ou t in e r epet it ive t a sks of u n skilled wor k” a n d “Level 2’s n ot ion s of ‘det a iled bu t u n in volved in st r u ct ion s’”) (clea n ed u p). Bu t h a d t h e ALJ in st ea d followed Dr . La n der m a n ’s opin ion in fu ll a n d a sked t h e VE t o iden t ify jobs t h a t r equ ir e t h e a bilit y t o u n der st a n d a n d r em em ber “sh or t a n d sim ple” in st r u ct ion s, n on e of t h e jobs t h a t t h e VE iden t ified wou ld qu a lify. See, e.g., id. (“‘Sh or t ’ is 13 in con sist en t wit h ‘det a iled’ beca u se det a il a n d len gt h a r e h igh ly cor r ela t ed. Gen er a lly, t h e lon ger t h e in st r u ct ion s, t h e m or e det a il t h ey ca n in clu de.”); Th om a s v. Ber r yh ill, 916 F .3d 307, 314 (4t h Cir . 2019) (fin din g t h a t a “[con flict ] exist s” bet ween a cla im a n t ’s RF C, wh ich wa s lim it ed t o “sh or t , sim ple in st r u ct ion s[,] a n d t h e VE ’s t est im on y t h a t [t h e cla im a n t ] cou ld per for m jobs t h a t in clu de det a iled bu t u n in volved in st r u ct ion s”); Albr a v. Act in g Com m ’r of Soc. Sec., 825 F . App’x 704, 708-09 (11t h Cir . 2020) (con clu din g “t h er e exist s a n a ppa r en t con flict ” bet ween t h e cla im a n t ’s RF C lim it in g h er t o “sh or t , sim ple in st r u ct ion s” a n d t h e level t wo jobs iden t ified by t h e VE ); Lin wood C. v. Kija k a zi, N o. 1:22-cv-00013, 2022 WL 10337867, a t *4 (D. Me. Oct . 18, 2022) (“Th e ALJ ’s RF C det er m in a t ion t h a t P la in t iff is lim it ed t o t a sks wit h ‘sh or t ’ in st r u ct ion s, t h er efor e, is in con sist en t or in con flict wit h t h e DOT Level 2 r ea son in g, wh ich r equ ir es t h e a bilit y t o ca r r y ou t ‘det a iled’ (i.e., lon ger ) in st r u ct ion s.”). Bu t see Ra n st r om v. Colvin , 622 F . App’x 687, 688 (9t h Cir . 2015) (“Th er e is n o a ppr ecia ble differ en ce bet ween t h e a bilit y t o m a ke sim ple decision s ba sed on ‘sh or t , sim ple in st r u ct ion s’ a n d t h e a bilit y t o u se com m on sen se u n der st a n din g t o ca r r y ou t ‘det a iled bu t u n in volved in st r u ct ion s,’ wh ich is wh a t Rea son in g Level 2 r equ ir es.”) (clea n ed u p). Th e sign ifica n ce of t h e ALJ ’s er r or is com pou n ded by t h e fa ct t h a t sh e a lso over looked Dr . La n der m a n ’s fin din g t h a t F a va t a cou ld n ot u n der st a n d, r eca ll, or ca r r y ou t “m or e det a iled [in st r u ct ion s] on a con sist en t ba sis.” Tr . 82. 14 E ven if a per son ca pa ble of u n der st a n din g, r em em ber in g, a n d ca r r yin g ou t sh or t , sim ple in st r u ct ion s ca n per for m Level 2 jobs in cer t a in cir cu m st a n ces, a per son wh o ca n n ot u n der st a n d, r em em ber , a n d ca r r y ou t det a iled in st r u ct ion s on a con sist en t ba sis is pla in ly u n a ble t o en ga ge in Level 2 r ea son in g. Th u s, t h e ALJ ’s fa ilu r e t o expla in wh y sh e did n ot a dopt Dr . La n der m a n ’s opin ion in fu ll wa s a ser iou s er r or t h a t m a y well h a ve a ffect ed h er det er m in a t ion t h a t F a va t a wa s n ot disa bled. It is n ot for t h is cou r t t o t r y t o gu ess a s t o wh et h er t h e ALJ con sider ed a n d r ea son a bly discou n t ed, m ist a ken ly over looked, or im per m issibly ign or ed t h e m edica l eviden ce. Du m on t , 2017 WL 6559758, a t *8 (“Th is cou r t is n ot en t it led t o specu la t e a s t o t h e r ea son s for t h e ALJ ’s a ppa r en t r eject ion of t h ose lim it a t ion s. Th e ALJ ’s fa ilu r e t o offer a n expla n a t ion con st it u t es er r or wa r r a n t in g r em a n d.”); Du be v. Ast r u e, 781 F . Su pp. 2d 27, 35 (D.N.H . 2011) (“Mor eover , a cou r t m u st be a ble t o det er m in e wh et h er t h e ALJ con sider ed t h e con t r a r y eviden ce a n d ch ose t o discr edit it , or wh et h er it wa s ‘sim ply ign or ed.’”) (qu ot in g Lor d v. Apfel, 114 F . Su pp. 2d 3, 14 (D.N .H . 2000)). As su ch , t h e ALJ ’s fa ilu r e t o r ecogn ize or r econ cile differ en ces in t h e m edica l eviden ce or su fficien t ly expla in or su ppor t h er RF C det er m in a t ion wit h su bst a n t ia l eviden ce wa s a n er r or , a n d r em a n d is n ecessa r y. See Sea vey v. Ba r n h a r t , 276 F .3d 1, 12 (1st Cir . 2001) (“Wh en a n a gen cy h a s n ot con sider ed a ll r eleva n t fa ct or s in t a kin g a ct ion , or h a s pr ovided in su fficien t expla n a t ion 15 for it s a ct ion , t h e r eviewin g cou r t or din a r ily sh ou ld r em a n d t h e ca se t o t h e a gen cy.”). I V. CONCLUSION F or t h e for egoin g r ea son s, t h e Com m ission er ’s m ot ion t o a ffir m (Doc. 8) is den ied. F a va t a ’s m ot ion t o r ever se (Doc. 6) is gr a n t ed, t h e ALJ ’s decision is va ca t ed, a n d t h e ca se is r em a n ded t o t h e Com m ission er for fu r t h er pr oceedin gs con sist en t wit h t h is opin ion . Th e cler k is dir ect ed t o en t er ju dgm en t a ccor din gly a n d close t h e ca se. SO ORDE RE D. /s/ P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o Un it ed St a t es Dist r ict J u dge Decem ber 5, 2023 cc: Cou n sel of Recor d 16
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
