WANDERER v. KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOC. SEC.
2:21-cv-04225
E.D. Pa.Jun 27, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Steven R. Wanderer (b. 1995) protectively filed for DIB and SSI on Feb. 18, 2020, alleging onset Nov. 1, 2019 from autism spectrum disorder, major depressive disorder, and opioid dependence.
- Claims were denied initially and on reconsideration; ALJ hearing held May 3, 2021; ALJ denied benefits on May 14, 2021 finding severe impairments of MDD and ASD.
- In evaluating the Listings, the ALJ found marked limitation in interacting with others but in the RFC prohibited only contact with the general public and did not limit interactions with co-workers or supervisors.
- The ALJ found consultative examiner Beau Brendley, Psy.D., persuasive, although Dr. Brendley assessed moderate limitations with public, supervisors, and co-workers; the ALJ relied in part on otherwise-normal mental status exam (MSE) findings while downplaying narrative observations.
- The ALJ did not explicitly address Plaintiff’s school records/IEPs (ages 2009–2014), which SSR 11-2p says may inform evaluations for claimants aged 18–25.
- Defendant filed an uncontested motion to remand; the court granted remand under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), ordering further proceedings and a new hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RFC/hypothetical accounted for the ALJ’s own finding of a marked limitation in interacting with others | Wanderer: RFC failed to impose limits on interactions with co-workers/supervisors despite ALJ finding marked limitation and Dr. Brendley’s moderate-limitation opinion | Commissioner: urged remand for further evaluation (uncontested) | Court: Remand required; ALJ must reconcile the inconsistency and explain any limits on coworker/supervisor contact |
| Whether the ALJ over-relied on MSEs and ignored narrative/observational evidence | Wanderer: ALJ improperly emphasized "otherwise normal" MSE findings and minimized narrative observations showing social/communication problems | Commissioner: agreed further evaluation is warranted | Court: Remand required for reconsideration of mental health/cognitive evidence, including narrative portions of exams |
| Whether the ALJ failed to consider school records/IEPs as SSR 11-2p directs for young adults | Wanderer: ALJ did not address the IEPs in the record and failed to explain whether they were considered or rejected | Commissioner: agreed remand appropriate to address record gaps | Court: Remand required; ALJ must state consideration and reasons regarding school records/IEPs |
| Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s testimony | Wanderer: ALJ did not adequately consider or credit his testimony | Commissioner: agreed a new hearing and further consideration should occur | Court: Remand ordered; new hearing to permit reassessment of testimony after reevaluation of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829 F.2d 1269 (3d Cir. 1987) (VE hypothetical must account for all claimant impairments to be substantial evidence)
- Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210 (3d Cir. 1984) (hypothetical must capture claimant’s limitations)
- Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000) (ALJ must indicate evidence rejected and reasons for discounting it)
- Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 1999) (court must be able to tell whether probative evidence was credited or ignored)
- Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700 (3d Cir. 1981) (ALJ’s decision must permit meaningful judicial review)
- Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) (separation-of-powers precedent noted; court did not decide here because remand was ordered)