Yer Vue v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California reviews Yer Vue’s challenge to the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income. The court concludes that the Administrative Law Judge inadequately evaluated the supportability and consistency of treating psychiatrist Michael Thao’s opinions under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c and therefore determines that further proceedings are required. The court does not reach Vue’s separate challenge to the evaluation of her subjective-symptom testimony.

Holdings

1. An ALJ must articulate how the ALJ considered both the supportability and consistency factors when evaluating the persuasiveness of a medical opinion, and the explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
2. An ALJ may not reject a medical opinion by relying on a generalized assertion that the opinion is inconsistent with longitudinal evidence or unsupported by examination findings without identifying and accurately characterizing the relevant evidence.
3. An error in evaluating medical-opinion evidence is not harmless when the court cannot confidently conclude that no reasonable ALJ, fully crediting the opinion, could reach a different disability determination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ adequately evaluated the supportability and consistency of Dr. Thao's medical opinions under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c.
2. Whether the ALJ's evaluation of Dr. Thao's opinions was supported by substantial evidence.
3. Whether the ALJ's evaluation of Plaintiff's subjective-symptom testimony was legally adequate.

Disposition

vacated