62 F.4th 872
4th Cir.2023Background
- Plaintiff Shanette Rogers is a veteran with chronic PTSD from a military sexual assault; the VA rated her 100% disabled as of September 2018.
- Rogers filed for Social Security disability benefits in October 2018 (alleged onset May 2018); an ALJ denied benefits in December 2019, finding PTSD severe but concluding Rogers could perform other work.
- The ALJ acknowledged the VA 100% rating but treated it as "only partly persuasive" and stated it could not be given controlling weight.
- In 2017 the SSA promulgated new rules (effective March 27, 2017) directing that other agencies’ disability determinations are "inherently neither valuable nor persuasive" and need not be analyzed in SSA decisions.
- The district court held the new SSA rules superseded Fourth Circuit precedents requiring substantial weight to VA/state disability ratings; the Fourth Circuit panel agreed on that point but vacated and remanded because the ALJ omitted significant record evidence (menstrual-cycle–triggered exacerbations) from the RFC analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SSA's 2017 rules displace Fourth Circuit precedents (DeLoatche/Bird/Woods) that require substantial weight to other agencies' disability determinations | Rogers: Fourth Circuit precedents control and an ALJ must consider and usually give substantial weight to a VA 100% rating | Commissioner: Under Brand X/Chevron, SSA rulemaking is entitled to deference and the 2017 rules validly govern claims filed on/after March 27, 2017 | Held for Commissioner: Brand X/Chevron apply; the 2017 SSA rules supersede the cited Fourth Circuit precedents for claims filed on/after March 27, 2017, so the ALJ did not err in refusing to accord substantial weight to the VA rating |
| Whether the ALJ erred in the RFC by omitting evidence that Rogers’s functioning worsens during menstruation (triggering intense flashbacks and isolation) | Rogers: Menstrual-cycle–linked exacerbations are relevant to ability to sustain an 8-hour workday and must be considered and discussed in the RFC | Commissioner: (ALJ implicit) the ALJ adequately assessed the record and RFC conclusions stand | Held for Rogers: The ALJ failed to address this significant, relevant evidence in the RFC; that omission prevents meaningful review and requires remand for further administrative proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLoatche v. Heckler, 715 F.2d 148 (4th Cir. 1983) (ALJ must consider other agencies’ disability determinations and articulate findings for review)
- Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2012) (SSA must give substantial weight to VA disability ratings absent clear record justification to do otherwise)
- Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686 (4th Cir. 2018) (extends Bird to state-agency disability determinations; ALJ must give persuasive, specific reasons to accord less than substantial weight)
- Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (a later permissible agency interpretation can displace prior judicial construction unless the statute is unambiguous)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for deferring to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes)
- Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) (RFC must account for ability to perform sustained work-related activities on a regular and continuing basis)
- Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2019) (ALJ must discuss substantial portions of the record to permit meaningful judicial review)
- Dowling v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 986 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2021) (failure to address considerable relevant evidence is legal error)
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (agency rulemaking must remain within statutory authority and not be arbitrary or capricious)
- Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U.S. 34 (1981) (recognizes broad rulemaking authority of SSA Commissioner)