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. B AC KG R O U N D A. 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
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
3
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.
4
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
5
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
6
“[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.
7
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.
8
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. 6-
9
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
10
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-CV- 6097S, 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
11
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.
12
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 .
13
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-cv- 30117, 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
14
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.
15
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
16
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