Badgett v. Kijakazi
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Signed on November 17, 2022, by District Judge Greg Kays. (Law Clerk).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
LAURA R. BADGETT,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
This case arises from the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“the Commissioner”) denial
of Plaintiff Laura Badgett’s application for supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI
of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381–1383f. The Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) found Plaintiff had severe impairments of pseudoseizures, posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and depression, but she retained the residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with certain non-exertional
limitations, including work as a binder-and-wrapper packer, laundry worker, sorter of clothes, and
After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court cannot conclude
that substantial evidence on the record supports the ALJ’s decision. Therefore, the case is
REMANDED for further proceedings.
Procedural and Factual Background
The complete facts and arguments are presented in the parties’ briefs and are repeated here
only to the extent necessary.
Case 3:22-cv-05005-DGK Document 11 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 6
Plaintiff applied for SSI on January 31, 2020, alleging a disability onset date of August 15,
2019. The Commissioner denied the application at the initial claim level, and Plaintiff appealed
the denial to the ALJ. The ALJ held a telephone hearing on February 9, 2021, and on May 5, 2021,
issued a decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s
request for review on November 26, 2021, leaving the ALJ’s decision as the Commissioner’s final
decision. Since Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies, judicial review is now
appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Standard of Review
A federal court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny disability benefits is
limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence
on the record as a whole and whether the ALJ committed any legal errors. Igo v. Colvin, 839 F.3d
724, 728 (8th Cir. 2016). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but is enough evidence
that a reasonable mind would find it sufficient to support the Commissioner’s decision. Id. In
making this assessment, the court considers evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s
decision, as well as evidence that supports it. Id. The court must “defer heavily” to the
Commissioner’s findings and conclusions. Wright v. Colvin, 789 F.3d 847, 852 (8th Cir. 2015);
see Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1157 (2019) (noting the substantial evidence standard of
review “defers to the presiding ALJ, who has seen the hearing up close.”). The court may reverse
the Commissioner’s decision only if it falls outside of the available zone of choice; a decision is
not outside this zone simply because the evidence also points to an alternate outcome. Buckner v.
Astrue, 646 F.3d 549, 556 (8th Cir. 2011).
Case 3:22-cv-05005-DGK Document 11 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 6
The Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation process 1 to determine whether
a claimant is disabled, that is, unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of a
medically determinable impairment that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous
period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing to adopt a certain limitation assessed by the
state agency psychological consultant, Kim Stalker, PsyD, or explain why said limitation was not
adopted. 2 ECF No. 8 at 10–15. Dr. Stalker found, among other things, that Plaintiff “can
understand, remember, and carry out a two-step command involving simple instructions.” R. 20.
The ALJ ultimately found, among other things, that Plaintiff can “understand, remember, and carry
out simple instruction[s].” R. 15. Plaintiff argues that since the ALJ found Dr. Stalker’s opinion
persuasive and adopted it, he should have limited the RFC to only “two-step commands” or
explained why he was not adopting this limitation. ECF No. 8 at 10. Defendant counters that the
ALJ does not need to perform a “line-by-line” assessment of the medical opinion and identify
every limitation that was adopted or rejected in formulating the RFC, but rather only needs to
credit the opinions supported by the record as a whole. ECF No. 9 at 6–7. And since the ALJ
“The five-step sequence involves determining whether (1) a claimant’s work activity, if any, amounts to substantial
gainful activity; (2) his impairments, alone or combined, are medically severe; (3) his severe impairments meet or
medically equal a listed impairment; (4) his residual functional capacity precludes his past relevant work; and (5) his
residual functional capacity permits an adjustment to any other work. The evaluation process ends if a determination
of disabled or not disabled can be made at any step.” Kemp ex rel. Kemp v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 630, 632 n.1 (8th Cir.
2014); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)–(g). Through Step Four of the analysis the claimant bears the burden of showing
that he is disabled. After the analysis reaches Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that there are
other jobs in the economy that the claimant can perform. King v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 978, 979 n.2 (8th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ failed to articulate the persuasiveness of her treating psychologist’s opinion and
failed to support his evaluation with substantial evidence. Because the Court finds remand is appropriate based on
Plaintiff’s first argument, it declines to address her other argument.
Case 3:22-cv-05005-DGK Document 11 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 6
listed numerous observations in support of the RFC, Defendant argues it fulfilled its obligation.
Id. at 7–8.
Because this claim was filed in 2019, the revised regulations apply to the arguments here.
Under those regulations, an ALJ is not required to adopt or give any specific evidentiary weight to
a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a). But an ALJ must explain how persuasive she
finds a medical opinion based on, at least, the supportability and consistency of that opinion with
the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(1)–(2). When an ALJ’s assessment of
medical sources directly conflicts with the claimant’s RFC, and the ALJ fails to explain that
conflict, a limited remand may be appropriate for clarification if the error appears to have impacted
the outcome. See Neeley v. Berryhill, No. 4:16-cv-00883-DGK, 2017 WL 4074614, at *3–4 (W.D.
Mo. Sept. 14, 2017); see also Hickert v. Kijakazi, No. 4:21-CV-00425-DGK, 2022 WL 2966882,
at *2 (W.D. Mo. July 27, 2022); Stafford v. Kijikazi, No. 4:20-cv-1011-NKL, 2022 WL 358061,
at *3–4 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 7, 2022); Masden v. Saul, No. 4:20-cv-00267-MDH, 2021 WL 3172934,
at *2–3 (W.D. Mo. July 27, 2021); Shay v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 4:18-cv-00870-RK, 2020 WL
30326, at *2–3 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 2, 2020).
Here, the Court cannot find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s assessment of Dr.
Stalker’s opinion. The ALJ explicitly stated that it was adopting Dr. Stalker’s opinion, including
the limitation that “she could understand, remember, and carry out a two-step command involving
simple instructions.” R. 20 (emphasis added). However, the ALJ’s RFC formulation states that
Plaintiff “can understand, remember, and carry out simple instruction[s.]” R. 15 (emphasis added).
The ALJ did not explain why the two-step command limitation was not included in Plaintiff’s
RFC, despite explicitly stating that it was adopting Dr. Stalker’s opinion. Unless this apparent
Case 3:22-cv-05005-DGK Document 11 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 6
error was harmless, this is problematic. See Neeley v. Berryhill, No. 4:16-cv-00883-DGK, 2017
WL 4074614, at *3–4 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 14, 2017).
The Court cannot find the error to be harmless. For instance, the ALJ did not present the
Vocational Expert (“VE”) with a hypothetical regarding a two-step command limitation, R. 91–
94, and the VE ultimately found Plaintiff capable of working as a binder-and-wrapper packer,
laundry worker, sorter of clothes, or toy stuffer—all reasoning level-two jobs. R. 23. Plaintiff
argues that a two-step command limitation would have limited the VE’s findings to reasoning
level-one jobs instead. ECF No. 8 at 12–13. Compare Thomas v. Berryhill, 881 F.3d 672, 677
(8th Cir. 2018) (defining level-one reasoning “as the mere ability to apply ‘commonsense
understanding to carry out simple one-or two-step instructions’”), with Moore v. Astrue, 623 F.3d
599, 604 (8th Cir. 2010) (finding level-two reasoning occupations were appropriate since “the ALJ
did not limit ‘simple’ job instructions to ‘simple one- or two-step instructions’”). Since the ALJ
did not present the two-step command limitation to the VE, the Court cannot definitively find that
the difference in this limitation would have no impact on the disability determination. See Gann
v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 947, 952 (8th Cir. 2017) (“[W]e have previously recognized that a VE cannot
accurately assess the claimant’s job prospects unless the hypothetical question comprehensively
describes the claimant’s limitations.”).
In remanding for further clarification, the Court is not indicating what it believes the
ultimate disability determination should be. That decision is reserved for the Commissioner. The
Court is simply saying that the ALJ should provide a more thorough explanation of why it did not
include the two-step command limitation assessed in Dr. Stalker’s opinion.
Case 3:22-cv-05005-DGK Document 11 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 6
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds the record lacks substantial evidence to
support the ALJ’s decision, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further
proceedings consistent with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 17, 2022
/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 3:22-cv-05005-DGK Document 11 Filed 11/17/22 Page 6 of 6
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?