Reported / Citable
Background
Adel S. sought review on behalf of his minor child, MS, after the Social Security Administration determined in a continuing disability review that MS was no longer disabled as of May 3, 2019. MS had initially been found disabled in 2017 because of low birth weight under 1,200 grams.
After an earlier administrative decision was vacated for applying the wrong rules to opinion evidence, a second ALJ again found that MS was no longer disabled. The ALJ considered MS’s developmental, speech, behavioral, and educational evidence, including a 2024 psychological consultative examination by Dr. Michael Osborne.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Peter Bray granted Adel’s summary-judgment motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded for further administrative proceedings. The court held that the ALJ’s conclusion that MS’s original low-birth-weight impairment had medically improved was supported by substantial evidence, and treated errors in identifying the comparison-point impairment and structuring the first two review steps as harmless.
But the ALJ did not comply with 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c when evaluating medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings. The ALJ failed to explain the required supportability and consistency factors for state-agency evidence and for Dr. Osborne’s consultative psychological opinion. That omission was not harmless because the court could not determine which opinions the ALJ found persuasive, why, or how the unaddressed evidence affected the functional-domain analysis.
Key Takeaways
- An ALJ must explain the supportability and consistency of medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings.
- A statement that an opinion is consistent with the ALJ’s own findings does not satisfy the regulatory consistency analysis.
- Failure to articulate opinion persuasiveness warrants remand when it prevents meaningful judicial review and could affect the disability determination.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that child-disability continuing-review decisions must separately and adequately evaluate medical opinions under the current SSA regulations. Courts will not supply post hoc reasoning where the ALJ’s decision does not reveal how key opinion evidence was weighed.