Patterson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 960
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Constance L. Patterson applied for Social Security disability benefits; an ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council declined review, making the ALJ’s decision final.
- The ALJ found Patterson had a severe mental impairment (borderline intellectual functioning) but did not meet a Listing and concluded she retained an RFC for light work with a sit/stand option.
- The ALJ relied heavily on Dr. Horn’s review of Dr. Ritterspach’s psychological testing but failed to document application of the special technique required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a when evaluating mental impairments.
- The ALJ also did not address conflicting or potentially contrary evidence (e.g., IQ/test results and other physician views) in a way that allows meaningful judicial review.
- The SSA conceded the ALJ failed to follow the special-technique regulation; the magistrate and district court nevertheless found the error harmless and affirmed.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the ALJ’s failure to apply and document the special technique here was not harmless because it prevented effective judicial review of the mental-impairment evaluation and RFC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an ALJ’s failure to apply/document the § 404.1520a special technique requires remand | Patterson: ALJ violated regulation and failed to evaluate/record functional limitations, so remand required | SSA: Error can be harmless; court can apply the special technique itself and affirm if outcome is supported | Error does not automatically require remand, but on these facts the failure was not harmless; remand ordered for proper application/documentation |
| Whether the court may apply the special technique in the first instance to cure ALJ error | Patterson: Court should not fill gaps; courts lack factfinding authority for credibility/weight issues | SSA: Court can perform the special-technique analysis and affirm if it yields same result | Court declined to apply the technique in the first instance because missing analysis and conflicting evidence impair judicial review |
| Whether the ALJ’s RFC and step-5 findings are supported absent documented mental-function ratings | Patterson: RFC unreliable without documented § 404.1520a ratings and explanation | SSA: Under harmless-error theory, RFC can be upheld if record supports it | Because ALJ failed to document required ratings and reconcile conflicting evidence, RFC and step-5 findings cannot be reliably reviewed; remand required |
| Whether conflicting/inconclusive evidence allows harmless-error review here | Patterson: Conflicting evidence makes any post-hoc judicial application impermissible | SSA: Harmless-error review still available | Court held that where the record is conflicting/inconclusive, harmless-error review is inappropriate and remand is necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Shively v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987 (4th Cir. 1984) (scope of judicial review: substantial evidence standard)
- Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700 (4th Cir. 2011) (insufficient record precludes harmless-error affirmance)
- Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) (ALJ’s failure to follow mental-impairment assessment procedure requires remand)
- Kohler v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2008) (special-technique failure normally precludes harmless-error affirmance)
- Rabbers v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (held special-technique error may be harmless in some cases)