Rhoda B. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington reverses the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying Rhoda B. disability benefits and remands for further proceedings. The court finds harmful error in the ALJ’s treatment of alleged neurocognitive deficits, right knee osteoarthritis, lay-witness evidence, and subjective complaints. The court grants Plaintiff’s motion for remand, denies the Commissioner’s motion to affirm, and directs the ALJ to reassess all impairments and medical opinions.

Holdings

1. Although failure to classify an impairment as severe at step two is not reversible error when the ALJ considers the impairment's effects throughout the remaining sequential evaluation, the ALJ commits reversible error when the omission results in failure to consider the impairment's effect on the claimant's ability to work. The ALJ reversibly erred by failing to account for plaintiff's neurocognitive deficits and right-knee osteoarthritis in evaluating her ability to perform past work and other work.
2. The ALJ reversibly erred by failing to meaningfully consider and analyze the detailed lay-witness statement from plaintiff's former employer concerning plaintiff's post-stroke cognitive decline and job performance.
3. The ALJ did not provide legally sufficient reasons for discounting plaintiff's complaints of cognitive impairment. Relatively simple volunteer work, household chores, and playing cards were not specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject the complaints.
4. The ALJ must reassess all medical opinions, including cognitive testing and follow-up testing, on remand, with attention to both cognitive and physical impairments.

Questions Presented

1. Whether substantial evidence and proper legal standards supported the ALJ's evaluation of plaintiff's impairments at step two and at the later sequential-evaluation steps.
2. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated lay-witness evidence concerning plaintiff's post-stroke cognitive limitations.
3. Whether the ALJ provided legally sufficient reasons for discounting plaintiff's subjective complaints.
4. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the medical opinions and cognitive testing in determining plaintiff's residual functional capacity.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded