Czajkowski v. Colvin
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 08/06/2014. (bas, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
(410) 962-7780
Fax (410) 962-1812
August 6, 2014
LETTER TO COUNSEL:
RE:
Stephen Jay Czajkowski v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-13-3261
Dear Counsel:
On November 4, 2013, the Plaintiff, Stephen Jay Czajkowski, petitioned this Court to
review the Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny his claim for Disability
Insurance Benefits. ECF No. 1. I have considered the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment. ECF Nos. 21, 23. I find that no hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.
2011). This Court must uphold the decision of the agency if it is supported by substantial
evidence and if the agency employed proper legal standards. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3);
see Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). Under that standard, I will deny both
motions and remand the case to the Commissioner. This letter explains my rationale.
Mr. Czajkowski filed claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”) on March 22, 2010, alleging a disability onset date of November 1,
2008. (Tr. 98-108). His claims were denied initially and on reconsideration. (Tr. 67-70, 76-79).
A hearing was held on March 20, 2012 before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 3162). During the hearing, the ALJ expressed a willingness to award SSI to Mr. Czajkowski, but
not DIB. (Tr. 38-39). Following the hearing, the ALJ found that Mr. Czajkowski became
disabled on the date of his application, March 10, 2010, which rendered him eligible for SSI but
not for DIB, since his date last insured was March 31, 2009. (Tr. 13-26). The Appeals Council
denied Mr. Czajkowski’s request for review, (Tr. 1-6), so the ALJ’s decision constitutes the
final, reviewable decision of the agency.
The ALJ’s opinion is not susceptible to effective judicial review due to its convenient but
unexplained adoption of March 10, 2010 as the disability onset date. The ALJ appears to have
selected the date of Mr. Czajkowski’s filing for benefits, despite the fact that there is no apparent
change in his medical condition on that date. Although March 10, 2010 is the first date that Mr.
Czajkowski would be eligible for SSI, eligibility for SSI has no impact on whether an individual
is disabled or not disabled.
In the heading explaining why Mr. Czajkowski is unable to work after March 10, 2010,
the ALJ appears to cite “pain from the combination of his impairments and the side effects from
his medications” to be the triggering factor. (Tr. 20). Again, there is no evidence that either his
Stephen Czajkowski v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-13-3261
August 6, 2014
Page 2
pain or his medication side effects changed on March 10, 2010.1 There is evidence, cited by the
ALJ, that in May, 2009, Mr. Czajkowski “reported having fatigue from his medication.” (Tr. 21,
190). If the ALJ relied on that evidence to support the finding of disability, then it might be
important to see whether that fatigue started anytime before May, 2009, given the proximity to
the date last insured on March 31, 2009. However, the ALJ’s opinion provides no guidance as to
whether it is that fatigue or some other factor triggering the ALJ’s determination that Mr.
Czajkowski became disabled as of March 10, 2010.
Candidly, the selection of March 10, 2010 as an onset date appears to have been an
attempt by the ALJ to shorten the hearing by procuring consent to an amended onset date that
would afford Mr. Czajkowski some level of benefits. (Tr. 42) (“I’ve offered an amended onset
date; I’m not hearing anything at this point beyond silence, so I’m going to go on with the
hearing. I have several of these to do today –“); (Tr. 43) (“I’ve offered an amended onset date,
that was – what I’m hearing is that it was not accepted. I’m going ahead with the hearing. That
offer is off the table. I’m having the hearing. I’m going to decide the case.”). Once that attempt
to resolve the case by consent was unsuccessful, however, the ALJ had a duty to determine Mr.
Czajkowski’s actual disability onset date (using, if appropriate, testimony from a medical expert
as discussed in Bird v. Comm. of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337, 344-45 (4th Cir. 2012) if the
date of onset is ambiguous), and to provide an explanation of that determination sufficient to
permit meaningful review. Because the ALJ did not fulfill those duties, remand is appropriate.
In so remanding, I express no opinion as to whether the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion that Mr.
Czajkowski became disabled on March 10, 2010 is correct or incorrect, or whether any
appropriate disability onset date would be before or after that date.
Mr. Czajkowski’s procedural arguments in this case garner increased significance in light
of the unexplained onset date. In a letter sent prior to the hearing, and again at the hearing, Mr.
Czajkowski’s counsel told the ALJ that Mr. Czajkowski had previously applied for benefits, and
that there was a consultative examination in the prior file from September, 2009 which had been
reviewed by the state agency in denying Mr. Czajowski’s pending claim. (Tr. 34-35, 180-81).
Mr. Czajkowski’s counsel repeatedly requested that the prior file be made part of the record in
this case. (Tr. 34-36). The ALJ pulled the consultative examination up on her computer,
reviewed the report, and stated, “It is there at my fingertips.” (Tr. 36). Mr. Czajkowski’s
counsel responded, “I don’t have it, though. That’s the problem.” Id. The ALJ ruled, “I think
that your motion has been satisfied because it’s all here.” Id. She then proceeded to review
certain portions of the consultative examination, which she appeared to be reading from her
computer screen. (Tr. 36-37). Neither the consultative examination nor the remainder of the
prior file became part of the record in the instant case. There is some irony in the
Commissioner’s argument that, “If Mr. Czajkowski or his attorney believed that there was
relevant evidence from an earlier time period that showed greater limitation than documented in
the available records, that evidence could have been specifically brought to the ALJ’s attention.”
Def. Mot. 12. Mr. Czajkowski’s counsel asked to review the relevant evidence from the earlier
1
In fact, in apparent contradiction of that date, the ALJ subsequently cited a treatment note from March, 2010 that
noted Mr. Czajkowski “was calm and pleasant and he reported positive improvement with his depression
medications.” (Tr. 21) (citing Tr. 251).
Stephen Czajkowski v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-13-3261
August 6, 2014
Page 3
time period, but was denied access by the ALJ herself.
On remand, to ensure a full and complete medical record, the prior file should be
provided to Mr. Czajkowski’s counsel to review and to determine what, if any, records from that
file are relevant to analysis of the current claim. Using that procedure, the record in this case
will accurately contain all of the documents considered by the medical sources, the ALJ, and
counsel, which will, if necessary, permit adequate appellate review at a later date.
For the reasons set forth herein, both parties’ motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos.
21, 23) will be DENIED. The opinion of the Administrative Law Judge is VACATED and the
case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings in accordance with this
opinion. The clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion.
implementing Order follows.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge
An
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?