Dabney v. O'Malley

Background

Charles Bernard Dabney III appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision finding that he was no longer disabled and was not eligible for continuing Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Dabney had originally been approved for benefits in 2013. After a continuing disability review, the agency determined in 2015 that his disability had ceased because of medical improvement. Following earlier administrative and court proceedings, Administrative Law Judge Hernandez issued an unfavorable decision on September 7, 2023.

Dabney’s medical history included injuries from two drive-by shootings, seizures, left-sided weakness and numbness, pain, panic disorder, severe depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. His father served as his in-home support worker and helped with tasks including meals, cleaning, personal care, and repositioning.

Issues and Analysis

Dabney raised five challenges: the Administrative Law Judge’s evaluation of medical opinions; the rejection of Dabney’s testimony; the finding that Dabney had medically improved; the residual functional capacity assessment; and reliance on vocational-expert testimony based on incomplete hypothetical questions.

The court found legally insufficient reasons for discounting several medical opinions. The Administrative Law Judge did not adequately explain why some sensory deficits, normal sensation, cooperative behavior, adequate eye contact, or adequate attention were inconsistent with the providers’ opinions about Dabney’s ability to use his hand, alternate sitting and standing, concentrate, interact with others, or withstand workplace stress. The court also found that the record supported Dr. Steven Golub’s opinion that Dabney might need a cane.

The court also found that the Administrative Law Judge failed to connect specific evidence to specific statements when rejecting Dabney’s testimony about the severity of his symptoms. The judge similarly failed to give legally sufficient reasons tied to each witness for discounting statements from Dabney’s parents. The court explained that lay testimony about how an impairment affects a person’s ability to work must be considered and cannot be rejected without adequate reasons.

The court concluded that the finding of medical improvement was not supported by substantial evidence. Although the record showed some improvement in mobility and did not document ongoing seizure activity after a certain point, the Administrative Law Judge did not consider those developments in the broader context of Dabney’s continuing impairments. The court also found that the residual functional capacity assessment was unsupported because it relied on the improperly discounted medical and lay testimony. As a result, the hypothetical given to the vocational expert did not include all of Dabney’s limitations.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Dabney’s motion for summary judgment and DENIED the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Judge Edward J. Davila REVERSED the Commissioner’s final decision and REMANDED the matter for further proceedings consistent with the order. The opinion does not state that benefits were awarded directly.