Facts

In October 2017, Irma V. applied for supplemental security income. She suffered many ailments, including a seizure disorder which requires medication. Some ailments she suffered from were the result of happenstance, such as when she became the unintended victim of a drive-by shooting and was shot in the back three times by errant bullets. As a result of those wounds, she suffered from severe back pain, numbness in the leg, spinal damage and, consequentially, migraines. In 2018, Irma was referred to Dr. Laura Catlin for a psychological consultative examination. Dr. Catlin produced a 20-page report based on a clinical interview, records review, and a mental status examination, in addition to administering four diagnostic instruments tests and providing findings based on the tests' results. Dr. Catlin's conclusion was that at that time, Irma would not be able to obtain or retain a job. At the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)'s retained medical expert, Dr. Faren Akins, a psychologist and attorney. Dr. Akins, stated that "to a medical certainty," Irma's conditions met the requirements for neurocognitive disorders, depression and trauma and stressor-related disorders. On the day Irma testified, she had a seizure in front of her clinicians and then another seizure in front of her attorneys outside the hearing room. At the hearing, when the ALJ questioned Irma thereafter, Irma's responses seemed incoherent and the ALJ abandoned the line of inquiry that was being pursued at that moment. The ALJ denied Irma's application and Irma's request for a review was also denied by the Appeals Council. Both parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, with both seeking summary judgment.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that not only did the ALJ improperly reject the opinion of the treating or examining doctor, Dr. Catlin, and the opinion of its own medical expert, Dr. Akins, the ALJ also failed to express specific or legitimate reasons for rejecting those doctors' opinions. First, contrary to defendant's argument, Dr. Akins was not just reiterating others' statements; instead, she reviewed the entire record, which was evident in his testimony. Plaintiff's voluminous medical records supported her poor health condition. For example, she was diagnosed with partial symptomatic epilepsy with complex partial seizures by a neurologist, who noted that plaintiff's intellectual disorder worsens her epilepsy. Moreover, the overwhelming weight of the treatment records, from various and several other sources, supported both doctors' findings. Finally, Dr. Catlin's opinions were based, in large part, on a thorough mental status examination and several diagnostic instruments tests, not just on plaintiff's complaints.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant argued the contrary, noting that the ALJ did provide clear and convincing reasons rejecting the doctors' opinions.

Result

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted and the ALJ's finding of non-disability was reversed and case remanded for calculation of benefits.