Latest / FLG Disability Insights / Why Stable Mental Health Notes May Not Answer the Work Question
Transcript
- Can someone look calm, cooperative, and focused during a mental health visit—and still struggle with the demands of a full workday? A recent SSI appeal says the decision-maker has to explain that connection. Welcome to FLG Disability Insights. I’m Nick Feden of Feden Law Group. In Charles K., a New Jersey federal court reviewed the denial of Supplemental Security Income. The dispute focused on how the administrative law judge evaluated a psychiatric provider’s assessment of specific workplace abilities. The provider addressed whether the claimant could handle ordinary work stress, respond to routine changes, maintain appropriate social behavior, and meet basic standards of neatness and cleanliness. Its rating categories had defined meanings. The administrative law judge treated those individual ratings as apparently moderate, then said they conflicted with the provider’s separate marked ratings in broader areas of mental functioning. The court found that explanation incomplete. If the questionnaire’s terms did not line up directly with Social Security’s terminology, the judge needed to explain the translation. Broad areas of mental functioning and specific work activities do different jobs in the analysis. Their relationship cannot simply be assumed. The decision also pointed to positive treatment notes: cooperative behavior, coherent thought, good memory, and good concentration. But the court said the judge did not explain how they showed sustained ability to handle workplace changes, ordinary stress, social expectations, or hygiene. The vocational testimony made the gap potentially important. An expert testified that a person unable to tolerate even occasional workplace changes could not sustain competitive employment. The court did not find that this limitation was established. It required Social Security to reassess the evidence, the mental impairment criteria, and the claimant’s remaining work capacity, with more vocational testimony if needed. This was a nonprecedential district court decision. It sent the case back for further proceedings; it did not award benefits. It also did not require automatic deference to the treating provider. The agency may still reject a restrictive opinion if it gives an adequately supported explanation addressing the source’s evidence and the rest of the record. The practical takeaway is to make function concrete. Treatment notes and provider opinions are most useful when they explain what improved, what limitations remain, and how those limits affect changes, stress, social interaction, hygiene, and other daily work demands. Visit FedenLawGroup dot com and try FLG Case Analyst Beta. Get a full report generated by an attorney-trained, cutting-edge AI model, then connect with our firm about your next step. This podcast offers general information, not legal advice. Individual outcomes depend on the evidence and applicable law. I’m Nick Feden. Thanks for listening to FLG Disability Insights.