Heather J. S. v. O'Malley

Background

Heather J. S. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to terminate her disability insurance benefits. In 2013, the Social Security Administration found her disabled beginning May 29, 2010, based on diabetes, chronic pain from historical back injuries, and asthma. The decision limited her to sedentary work for less than full-time hours and found that no jobs existed in significant numbers that she could perform.

In 2017, the Social Security Administration determined that her disability had ceased. After administrative hearings, an administrative law judge issued a 2019 decision finding that medical improvement had occurred as of August 1, 2017. In a prior related proceeding, No. 20-cv-1465 (D. Minn.), this court found that the administrative law judge had not properly followed the required continuing-disability-review process. The court remanded for further proceedings and made no finding about whether Heather remained entitled to benefits.

After the remand, a new administrative law judge held hearings and issued an April 2023 decision. The judge found that Heather’s back-related condition and asthma had improved, while her diabetes had remained controlled at about the same level. The judge also identified obesity, migraines, fibromyalgia, and tremor as additional severe impairments. The judge determined that Heather could perform light work with postural and environmental restrictions and could perform work as a labeler, hand packager, or inserter. The judge therefore found that she was no longer disabled as of August 1, 2017.

Issues and arguments

Heather’s sole challenge concerned step three of the continuing disability review under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(f). She argued that the administrative law judge did not identify substantial evidence showing medical improvement through a specific comparison between the evidence supporting the 2013 favorable decision and the later evidence.

The Commissioner argued that the new administrative law judge complied with the regulation by identifying the impairments underlying the earlier disability finding, discussing the evidence from that time, and comparing it with later medical records. The Commissioner also defended the decision to rely on earlier medical-expert testimony rather than obtain new testimony.

The court explained that the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that the conditions previously causing disability had improved and that the improvement was related to the ability to work. The court reviewed the decision for legal error and for substantial evidence, meaning evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the conclusion. The court was required to consider evidence supporting and conflicting with the administrative law judge’s decision but could not reweigh the evidence.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the new administrative law judge did what the earlier decision had required. The judge identified Heather’s three impairments at the time of the 2013 comparison-point decision, described the earlier evidence concerning her back condition, and compared that evidence with later records.

The earlier evidence included spine tenderness, degenerative disc disease, increasing back pain that led to emergency-room visits, reduced sensitivity, and reduced range of motion. The later evidence included normal sensations and gait, no postural or resting tremors during one examination, no spasms, a full range of motion, more stable spine pain, and a reduction in reported overall pain from eight out of ten to four out of ten after medication. The court found that this evidence provided a sufficient basis for finding improvement in the symptoms and signs associated with Heather’s back impairment.

The court also found that the administrative law judge compared Heather’s diabetes and asthma at the time of the earlier decision with the later record. The judge concluded that her diabetes remained controlled at about the same level and that her asthma symptoms were well controlled, with no reported shortness of breath or easy windedness and otherwise normal respiratory findings. The court acknowledged conflicting evidence, including asthma flare-ups, spinal tenderness, spasms, reduced range of motion, tremors, imbalance, falls, a slow gait, and decreased sensation. It nevertheless concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s findings.

The court also rejected Heather’s argument that the administrative law judge was required to obtain new medical-expert testimony. Heather identified no legal authority requiring additional testimony. The court found that the administrative law judge addressed the earlier expert’s conflicting statements and reasonably found the opinion that no medical improvement had occurred unpersuasive because the same expert had testified that Heather could perform light work, which exceeded her prior sedentary-work limitation.

Finally, the court distinguished the new decision from the 2019 decision even though both used the statement that the medical evidence showed a decrease in the severity of the impairments as of August 1, 2017. The court found that the 2019 statement was unsupported and conclusory, while the 2023 decision supported the statement with record citations and a specific comparison between the earlier and later evidence.

Disposition

The court found no legal error in the administrative law judge’s step-three analysis and concluded that the decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. The court DENIED Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 14), GRANTED Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 17), and ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.