Slip Opinion
D.N.J.Oct 14, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Kareem D. applied for Supplemental Security Income on March 27, 2015; ALJ Donna Krappa denied benefits on Sept. 6, 2018; Appeals Council declined review and this appeal followed.
- Consultative psychologist Robert Rekker, Psy.D., examined Plaintiff on June 19, 2018: WAIS‑IV full‑scale IQ = 70 (borderline intellectual functioning); diagnoses included bipolar disorder and mild neurocognitive disorder from childhood TBI.
- Dr. Rekker completed a medical source statement finding mild-to-moderate limitations for some tasks and a marked limitation in Plaintiff’s ability to interact with co‑workers and to respond to changes/usual work situations.
- The ALJ assigned Dr. Rekker’s opinion “partial weight,” adopted an RFC allowing only simple, repetitive work with only occasional contact with supervisors and the public, but did not limit interaction with co‑workers.
- The vocational expert’s testimony and the ALJ’s step‑5 finding relied on a hypothetical that did not include any co‑worker interaction limitation.
- The District Court reversed and remanded: the ALJ failed to explain rejecting or omitting Dr. Rekker’s marked co‑worker limitation, leaving the RFC and VE hypothetical unsupported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly considered and explained weight given to consultative examiner Dr. Rekker’s opinions, specifically the marked limitation interacting with co‑workers | ALJ improperly omitted and failed to explain rejection of Dr. Rekker’s marked limitation re: co‑workers; RFC therefore unsupported | ALJ permissibly gave partial weight to Dr. Rekker and RFC limitation to occasional contact with supervisors/public is supported by record | Remanded: ALJ must explain why Dr. Rekker’s marked co‑worker limitation was not adopted or must account for it; omission was not harmless |
| Whether the VE testimony and step‑5 finding were supported given the ALJ’s hypothetical omitted the co‑worker limitation | VE testimony relied on a hypothetical that did not include the omitted limitation, so step‑5 finding is unreliable | Defendant did not specifically defend the sufficiency of the VE hypothetical on this point | Remanded: ALJ’s hypothetical was infected by the omission and cannot support the denial without further explanation or a corrected hypothetical |
Key Cases Cited
- Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 2000) (district court reviews legal issues de novo; ALJ’s legal conclusions subject to plenary review)
- Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000) (ALJ factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1988) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000) (ALJ must provide sufficient explanation of findings to permit meaningful review)
- Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700 (3d Cir. 1981) (ALJ must indicate evidence rejected and reasons for discounting it)
- Gober v. Matthews, 574 F.2d 772 (3d Cir. 1978) (court must scrutinize record as whole; ALJ must analyze all probative evidence)
- Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546 (3d Cir. 2005) (ALJ decides RFC; must include credibly established limitations)
- Zirnsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607 (3d Cir. 2014) (ALJ may choose whether to include limitations but rejection must have support)