H.G. v. O'Malley

Background

H.G. appealed the Commissioner's final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She claimed disability beginning June 15, 2020. The administrative law judge found severe impairments including cervical disc disease with radiating symptoms, a rotator cuff impairment, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol use disorder, and alcoholic cirrhosis with related complications.

The administrative law judge found that H.G.'s impairments did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment. The judge determined that she could perform light work with limitations, could not return to her past work as a lunchroom attendant or sandwich maker, but could perform other jobs such as marker, housekeeper, and routing clerk. The Appeals Council denied review.

The parties submitted briefs, and the case was decided without oral argument. They had consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.

Issue and ruling

The main issue was whether the administrative law judge properly considered Listing 5.08. At the relevant time, that listing required weight loss due to a digestive disorder despite prescribed treatment, with a body mass index below 17.50 on at least two evaluations 60 days apart within a six-month period.

The court held that the administrative law judge failed to address Listing 5.08 or determine whether H.G.'s impairments medically equaled it. The court identified evidence of body mass indexes of 16.64 in February 2021 and 17.11 in May 2021, which satisfied the listing's specified body-mass-index timing requirement. The record also showed alcoholic cirrhosis and related conditions recognized as manifestations of chronic liver disease, weight loss during the relevant period, and medical treatment and weight monitoring.

The court rejected the idea that discussion of other digestive-disorder listings supplied an adequate explanation because those listings had different criteria. It also stated that it could not evaluate whether any conclusion about treatment compliance would have been supported because the administrative law judge never evaluated Listing 5.08. The error was not harmless because meeting or medically equaling a listing would conclusively establish disability under the Social Security rules.

Other claims

Because the court found the Listing 5.08 error, it did not reach H.G.'s other arguments concerning the evaluation of medical opinions and her credibility.

Disposition

Judge Susan Van Keulen reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded H.G.'s application to the agency for further proceedings. The court stated that the record did not clearly require a finding that H.G. was disabled even if the evidence were properly evaluated. On remand, the administrative law judge may also consider H.G.'s other arguments that the court did not address.