Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The plaintiff, Patrick Ryan Sumner, applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits in February 2023, alleging disability beginning in March 2022 based on bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), central sleep apnea, and related conditions. The Social Security Administration denied the claim at the administrative level. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found the plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) — a federal disability term for what the claimant can still do despite his impairments — to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with limitations to simple, routine tasks, only occasional contact with coworkers and supervisors, and no contact with the general public.
The plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Dwayne Depry, completed a mental RFC questionnaire. He diagnosed bipolar disorder, PTSD, and central sleep apnea, and opined that the plaintiff would be off task more than 15 percent of an 8-hour workday in multiple cognitive areas. Treatment records reflected ongoing mood swings, auditory and visual hallucinations, irritability triggered at work and around children, and an emergency room visit for suicidal and homicidal ideation during a manic episode (during which the plaintiff was found to be carrying twelve knives). The plaintiff also held a 100 percent VA PTSD disability rating.
The Court’s Holding
The court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, finding the ALJ’s mental RFC was not supported by substantial evidence. The principal problem was the ALJ’s handling of treating psychiatrist Dr. Depry’s opinion. The ALJ found Dr. Depry’s restrictive opinion inconsistent with the plaintiff’s daily activities, but did not cite specific record evidence and mischaracterized the activities the ALJ did mention. For example, the ALJ pointed to the plaintiff stating he was ‘trying to’ go river rafting and scuba diving with veteran programs as evidence of high functioning — but the testimony actually showed only that the plaintiff hoped to participate, not that he could.
The ALJ also failed to account for the plaintiff’s emergency room visits for psychiatric crises, including the September 2021 episode involving suicidal and homicidal ideation, mania, and the knives. Treatment notes from the plaintiff’s mental health providers documented ongoing significant symptoms — auditory and visual hallucinations, sleep disturbance, mood swings, irritability — that the ALJ did not meaningfully engage with when discounting Dr. Depry’s opinion.
The court found the error not harmless because, had the ALJ credited Dr. Depry’s restrictive opinion that the plaintiff would be off task more than 15 percent of an 8-hour workday in multiple areas, the disability outcome could have changed. The court declined to address a second argument — that the ALJ erred by not obtaining the medical assessment underlying the plaintiff’s 100 percent VA PTSD disability rating — because reversal was already required on the first ground. Both parties agreed remand was the proper remedy.
Key Takeaways
- An ALJ rejecting a treating psychiatrist’s mental RFC opinion based on ‘inconsistency with daily activities’ must cite specific record evidence and accurately characterize the activities involved.
- Aspirational testimony — what a claimant is ‘trying to’ do — is not evidence of present capacity for those activities.
- An ALJ may not skip over emergency room visits for psychiatric crises (including suicidal or homicidal ideation) when assessing the credibility and severity of mental health limitations.
- Off-task limitations of 15 percent or more in cognitive areas are typically work-preclusive; ALJ errors in evaluating such opinions are rarely harmless.
- A veteran’s 100 percent VA PTSD disability rating is relevant evidence the ALJ should consider, even though the SSA disability standard differs.
Why It Matters
For California veterans and others with serious mental health conditions seeking Social Security disability benefits, this opinion reinforces that ALJs cannot reject a treating psychiatrist’s restrictive opinion through vague references to daily activities — particularly when those activities are mischaracterized in the decision itself. The court’s careful reading of the record (catching the difference between ‘trying to’ do an activity and actually doing it) is a useful template for plaintiffs’ counsel seeking judicial review.
The case is also a reminder that emergency department records documenting psychiatric crises carry substantial probative weight. ALJs that ignore or minimize such episodes when assessing the severity of bipolar disorder, PTSD, or related conditions risk reversal on judicial review.