Thanksgiving Deal [kathryn L.] V. Comm’r Of Soc. Sec., No. 23-1460, 2024 Wl 400329 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2024) Holiday Cheer Edition [R5gvDo1L]

[Kathryn L.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 23-1460, 2024 WL 400329 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2024) (Decision by Gibbons, White, and Thapar, Circuit Judges)

Briefs Included:

• Appellant’s Initial Brief

• Appellant’s Reply Brief 

Topics addressed:

• Specific impairment - psychogenic nonepileptic seizure

• Listing - medical equivalence

• RFC - off task findings

• Medical opinions (new law) - persuasiveness

• Subjective symptoms - lay evidence

• Subjective symptoms - improper focus on objective evidence
  

Rulings addressed:

• Social Security Ruling 16-3p

• Social Security Ruling 17-2p
  

Issues briefed:

1)  Whether the Commissioner properly evaluated the severity of Appellant’s pseudo seizures.

2) Whether the Commissioner properly evaluated Appellant’s subjective complaints regarding her pseudo seizures and their impact on her ability to work.

Court decision: 

The Sixth Circuit noted that the ALJ “concluded, in just one sentence, ‘that the evidence in the file is not consistent with disabling symptoms from these impairments.’” 2024 WL 400329, at *3. However, as the court noted:

it is not sufficient for our adjudicators to make a single, conclusory statement that ‘the individual’s statements about his or her symptoms have been considered’ or that ‘the statements about the individual’s symptoms are (or are not) supported or consistent.’” Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, at *10 (Oct. 25, 2017). The “decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms . . . and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s symptoms.” Id. The ALJ’s brief discussion of [Kathryn L.’s] pseudoseizures, which gave little weight to [Kathryn L.’s] alleged symptoms without any clear explanation, fails to do so.

Id. The Sixth Circuit characterized this error as a “procedural error,” holding that remand was required because the ALJ “‘failed to follow its own procedural regulation.’” Id. at *4 (quoting Wilson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004)). And, as emphasized by the Sixth Circuit, “we require the ALJ to state her reasoning with more detail to allow a reviewing court to make that determination.” Id. (citing Hurst v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 753 F.2d 517, 519 (6th Cir. 1985) (“It is more than merely ‘helpful’ for the ALJ to articulate reasons . . . for crediting or rejecting particular sources of evidence. It is absolutely essential for meaningful appellate review.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).