Karen L. Ryan v. Commissioner of Social Security
United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
No. 06-15291; D.C. No. CV-03-02657-DFL/CMK

Person with Anxiety Disorder to Get SSA Benefits

Karen L. Ryan worked as a cashier and attendant at a garbage transfer station for several years. She was placed on an administrative leave after failing a random drug test and was ultimately terminated.

After she was fired, Karen began seeing her treating physician. The doctor diagnosed “anxiety disorder” and increased her dosage of anti-depressants. After several more visits, the doctor continued to diagnose anxiety disorder and noted rapid speech.

Karen underwent a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Randhawa who assessed her with anxiety disorder and depression. The doctor’s functional assessment was that Karen “would not be able to maintain regular attendance in the work place due to extreme anxiety and continuing depression, especially when faced in a work like situation. She would not be able to complete a normal workday/workweek without interruptions from her psychiatric condition at present”.

Karen filed for Title II disability benefits but was denied benefits after an initial hearing. The Appeals Council remanded for further vocational evidence and to allow Karen to present additional medical evidence.

After hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled against Karen denying her claim of benefits. The ALJ did not give full weight to the testimony of Dr. Randhawa assessing that Karen would have difficulty maintaining a regular work schedule due to her anxiety and depression. On review, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and affirmed the ALJ’s decision denying Karen of benefits.

Upon appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit opined that the records of Karen’s treating physician, a family practitioner, supported the examining psychologists’ assessment that Karen was incapable of maintaining a regular work schedule.

It gives credence to Dr. Randhawa’s assessment of Karen’s medical condition and held that there was no substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision.

The CA reversed and remanded the case with instructions to the Agency for payment of Karen’s benefits.