Russell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of, 6:19-cv-01194

Plaintiff filed for Supplemental Security Income on August 7, 2017; the ALJ denied benefits and the case proceeded to federal court.
ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling mental symptoms as inconsistent with: routine/conservative treatment, partial noncompliance with prescribed medications, improvement with therapy/case management, and activities of daily living.
Plaintiff argued the ALJ relied on her alleged noncompliance with medication without applying the four-factor Frey test (whether treatment would restore ability to work; whether treatment was prescribed; whether treatment was refused; whether refusal was without justifiable excuse).
The ALJ addressed two Frey elements (prescription and refusal) but did not consider whether treatment would restore work ability or whether refusal was justified.
The Commissioner did not defend the ALJ’s omission of the Frey factors in his briefing; the court held the Commissioner must apply the correct legal standard.
District court reversed and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the Commissioner to apply Frey (or otherwise address the legal standard) and reassess the noncompliance issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ erred by relying on Plaintiff’s alleged noncompliance with prescribed medication without applying the Frey four-factor test	ALJ failed to apply Frey’s required factors (restorative effect; justifiable excuse) before using noncompliance to discount testimony	ALJ permissibly considered treatment adherence as evidence of symptom severity; other record support justifies the credibility finding	Court: ALJ erred. Frey applies when an ALJ finds claimant refused prescribed treatment; omission requires remand because correct legal standard must be applied
Whether the Frey omission was harmless because other ALJ reasons were supported by substantial evidence	Frey omission is not harmless here: other inconsistencies cited by ALJ lack adequate support to cure legal error	Commissioner contends substantial evidence overall supports ALJ’s credibility and RFC findings	Court: Commissioner did not argue Frey’s inapplicability; error not addressed sufficiently—remand required for application of correct legal standard

Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508 (10th Cir. 1987) (establishes four-factor test for assessing claimant’s failure to follow prescribed treatment)
Thompson v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1993) (applies Frey to failure to pursue treatment or take medication)
Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368 (10th Cir. 2000) (distinguishes Frey where ALJ did not deny benefits for refusal to follow prescribed treatment but instead evaluated attempts to relieve pain)
Goodwin v. Barnhart, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (D. Kan. 2002) (synthesizes Qualls and Thompson and explains when Frey must be applied)