Mark R. v. Frank Bisignano

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana grants Plaintiff Mark R.'s request for remand in a Social Security disability benefits appeal. The court holds that the Administrative Law Judge erred by discounting a consultative psychologist's report as vague without seeking clarification as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1519p(b). The court reverses the Commissioner's decision and remands for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. When an ALJ determines that a consultative examiner's report is inadequate or incomplete because it is vague or lacks information needed to assess the claimant's limitations, the agency must contact the medical source for clarification or a revised report under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1519p(b). The ALJ reversibly erred by discounting Dr. Kadlec's report for vagueness without seeking clarification.
2. The ALJ's reliance on internal inconsistencies in Dr. Kadlec's report and on observations that Plaintiff was alert, oriented, and watched television or movies did not cure the failure to seek clarification or establish an adequate logical bridge.
3. The court declined to address Plaintiff's additional arguments after finding reversible error and remanded for further proceedings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ reversibly erred by discounting the report of the agency's consultative examining psychologist as vague without seeking clarification under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1519p(b).
2. Whether the ALJ's additional reasons for discounting the consultative psychologist's report were supported by substantial evidence and established an adequate logical bridge.
3. Whether the court should address Plaintiff's additional arguments concerning the consultative examining physician's report and the state agency reviewing psychologists' checkbox limitations.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded