REPP v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 1:22-cv-04510

Plaintiff filed for Title II disability benefits with an alleged onset date of June 6, 2019; denial at initial and reconsideration stages; ALJ hearing April 13, 2021; ALJ denied benefits on August 20, 2021; Appeals Council denied review.
Plaintiff reported significant physical pain and mental health symptoms (depression, PTSD, anxiety, ADHD) that affect concentration, pace, and daily functioning, and testified to limits in sitting, standing, walking, and need for assistive devices.
DDS psychiatric consultants Drs. Pruscino and Meza reviewed the file: both assessed mild limitations in some areas and moderate limitations in several mental-RFC categories (e.g., understanding/carrying out detailed instructions; maintaining attention/pace; completing a normal workday/week).
ALJ found RFC for a range of sedentary work (sit 6 hrs, stand/walk 2 hrs per 8-hr day; occasional postural limits; cane required) and adopted only portions of the DDS opinions, rejecting their moderate mental limitations as insufficiently consistent with the record.
On review, the District Court found the ALJ failed to adequately explain consideration of the two controlling regulatory factors—supportability and consistency—when assessing the DDS opinions and remanded for further analysis because that error was not harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the persuasive value of DDS psychiatric opinions under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (supportability and consistency)	ALJ failed to explain how he considered supportability and consistency for Drs. Meza and Pruscino and summarily rejected moderate limitations	ALJ reasonably evaluated the record and permissibly found portions of the DDS opinions inconsistent with treatment/exam findings	Court vacated and remanded: ALJ’s analysis of supportability and consistency was conclusory and inadequate, preventing meaningful review
Whether error was harmless	The inadequate explanation could have led to more restrictive mental RFC and altered VE testimony about available jobs	The ALJ’s ultimate RFC and VE testimony were sufficient; any error was harmless	Court held error was not harmless and remand required to reassess opinions and RFC

Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 2000) (district court reviews legal issues de novo; fact findings for substantial evidence)
Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000) (substantial-evidence standard)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000) (RFC and need to explain evidentiary basis for conclusions)
Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501 (3d Cir. 2004) (ALJ need not use specific language but must allow meaningful review)
Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700 (3d Cir. 1981) (ALJ must indicate evidence rejected and reasons for discounting)
Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 1999) (limits on ALJ credibility/decision explanations)
Wallace v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 722 F.2d 1150 (3d Cir. 1983) (when evidence is not substantial)