{"id":353,"date":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=353"},"modified":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","slug":"sumner-commissioner-social-security-ed-cal-reverses-mental-rfc-denial-treating-psychiatrist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=353","title":{"rendered":"Sumner v. Commissioner of Social Security \u2014 E.D. Cal. Reverses Mental RFC Denial Where ALJ Disregarded Treating Psychiatrist and ER Visits"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Sumner v. Commissioner of Social Security<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Eastern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-07<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
1:25-cv-00176-EPG<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Social Security disability, mental residual functional capacity, treating psychiatrist, VA disability rating, daily activities mischaracterization<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

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) \u2014 a federal disability term for what the claimant can still do despite his impairments \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

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 \u2014 but the testimony actually showed only that the plaintiff hoped to participate, not that he could.<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 auditory and visual hallucinations, sleep disturbance, mood swings, irritability \u2014 that the ALJ did not meaningfully engage with when discounting Dr. Depry’s opinion.<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 that the ALJ erred by not obtaining the medical assessment underlying the plaintiff’s 100 percent VA PTSD disability rating \u2014 because reversal was already required on the first ground. Both parties agreed remand was the proper remedy.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n