SSA's Revised Rules Supersede Precedents on Consideration of VA Disability Determinations in Social Security Claims

Introduction

The case of Shanette Rogers v. Kilolo Kijakazi adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on March 20, 2023, marks a significant development in Social Security disability law. The appellant, Shanette Rogers, challenged the Social Security Administration's (SSA) decision to deny her disability benefits, asserting that the SSA Commissioner improperly disregarded a prior determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) which deemed her 100% disabled. This commentary delves into the background, key legal issues, and the implications of the court's decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to uphold the SSA Commissioner's denial of Rogers's disability benefits. The crux of the case revolved around whether the SSA's new rules, enacted in 2017, override previous court precedents that mandated substantial consideration of other agencies' disability determinations, such as those from the VA. While acknowledging that the new SSA rules supersede prior precedents, the appellate court identified additional errors by the SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in omitting significant evidence related to Rogers's ability to work, warranting a remand for further administrative proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents:

• DeLOATCHE v. HECKLER, 715 F.2d 148 (4th Cir. 1983): Established that SSA ALJs must consider and discuss disability determinations from other agencies, ensuring meaningful judicial review.
• Bird v. Comm'r of Soc'r Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2012): Expanded on DeLoatche by specifying that SSA must give substantial weight to VA disability ratings unless the record clearly justifies otherwise.
• Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686 (4th Cir. 2018): Extended Bird's ruling to state agency disability determinations, emphasizing the need for SSA to accord substantial weight unless adequately justified.
• Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005): Provided the standard for when court precedents override agency rules, focusing on the statutory clarity and agency discretion.
• Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984): Set the framework for reviewing agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Legal Reasoning

The court's analysis pivoted on whether the SSA's 2017 rule changes, specifically 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1504 and 404.1520b(c)(1), which deem external disability determinations as "inherently neither valuable nor persuasive," could override established precedents. Applying the Brand X standard, the court determined that the Social Security Act does not explicitly preclude agency discretion in this matter. Consequently, under Chevron deference, the SSA's new rules were deemed permissible and not arbitrary or capricious.

The court further examined the procedural propriety of the SSA ALJ's decision. While the ALJ adhered to the new rules by not granting substantial weight to the VA's determination, the appellate court identified a separate error: the omission of critical evidence related to Rogers's residual functional capacity, particularly her fluctuating abilities linked to her menstrual cycle and PTSD. This oversight compromised the thoroughness required for meaningful judicial review.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future Social Security disability claims:

• Agency Precedence: Reinforces that SSA's rule changes can supersede prior judicial instructions, provided they fall within statutory authority and are not arbitrary.
• Consideration of External Evidence: Despite new rules diminishing the weight of other agencies' determinations, ALJs must still ensure comprehensive evaluations by addressing all relevant evidence.
• Judicial Review Standards: Highlights the necessity for ALJs to articulate their reasoning fully, ensuring that decisions are transparent and reviewable.
• Remand for Administrative Proceedings: Establishes that courts will intervene when procedural oversights occur, mandating thorough reevaluations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Chevron Deference

Chevron deference is a legal principle that compels courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute it administers, provided the interpretation is reasonable. In this case, the court applied Chevron to uphold SSA's new rules over previous judicial interpretations.

Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)

Residual Functional Capacity refers to the most a claimant can do despite their medical conditions. It assesses their ability to perform work-related activities, both past and other work, and is a critical factor in determining disability benefits.

Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit's decision in Shanette Rogers v. Kilolo Kijakazi underscores the judiciary's recognition of agency expertise, especially when agencies exercise their rule-making authority within statutory bounds. By affirming that the SSA's 2017 rules override previous precedents regarding the consideration of other agencies' disability determinations, the court acknowledged the evolving landscape of Social Security disability adjudications. However, the court also emphasized the necessity for ALJs to conduct comprehensive evaluations, ensuring all pertinent evidence is duly considered and articulated. This balance between agency discretion and thorough judicial review shapes the future of disability claims and reinforces the importance of procedural rigor in administrative decisions.