Li v. Colvin

Background

Siming Li appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision that she was no longer disabled and was not eligible for continuing Title XVI disability benefits. Li had previously been found disabled in 2008. After a continuing disability review, the Social Security Administration determined in November 2018 that her disability had ended because of medical improvement.

An administrative law judge held hearings in 2021 and 2023. The Appeals Council vacated the first unfavorable decision and sent the case back because the administrative law judge had applied the wrong rules. After the second hearing, the administrative law judge again found that Li’s disability ended on November 1, 2018. The decision relied on claimed improvement with medication, Li’s part-time work, her ability to raise two children, and 2022 records describing her ability to work and function normally.

Li argued that the administrative law judge failed to properly evaluate her dyslexia and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, medical opinions, her own testimony, Yang’s statement, the finding of medical improvement, the residual functional capacity assessment, and the vocational expert’s testimony.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that any error in not separately treating Li’s anxiety, dyslexia, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder as severe impairments was harmless because the administrative law judge considered the related limitations elsewhere in the analysis.

The court rejected the reasons given for discounting the opinions of treating therapist Michelle Gayle and examining physicians Dr. Paul Martin and Dr. Maria Kerosky. The administrative law judge relied on Li’s reported improvement with medication, childcare responsibilities, part-time work, and 2022 reports of normal functioning. The court found that these reasons were not supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence sufficient for a reasonable person to accept the conclusion. The administrative law judge did not adequately account for Li’s May 2022 psychiatric hospitalization, her continued symptoms while medicated, her difficulty taking medication as prescribed, or the substantial assistance Yang provided during her part-time work.

The court also found errors in evaluating Dr. Jacklyn Chandler’s opinion. Although some improvement with medication supported the administrative law judge’s view that Chandler’s opinion was consistent with part of the record, childcare, part-time work, and isolated improvement did not adequately establish consistency. The administrative law judge also failed to consider Li’s firsthand testimony that Chandler’s examination was rushed and did not address her day-to-day functioning.

The court found that the administrative law judge also inadequately evaluated medical expert Dr. Mary Buban’s opinion. The administrative law judge used the term “persuasive” rather than the applicable weight assessment and again relied on childcare, part-time work, medication-related improvement, and 2022 records without placing them in the context of Li’s hospitalization and continuing symptoms.

The court held that the administrative law judge did not give specific reasons connecting particular parts of Li’s testimony to evidence that undermined it. The court therefore required a remand on that issue. The administrative law judge properly rejected Yang’s statements about Li’s physical limitations and limited lifting and walking tolerance because those statements conflicted with medical examinations and Li’s testimony about exercise. But the administrative law judge gave no reason for rejecting the rest of Yang’s statement.

The court further held that the finding of medical improvement was not supported by substantial evidence. Although the record showed some improvement while Li was taking medication, it also showed continuing intrusive thoughts, hallucinations, nightmares, hypervigilance, depression, poor sleep, concentration and memory problems, suicidal thoughts, and a cycle of difficulty taking medication followed by psychiatric hospitalizations.

Because the medical and lay evidence was improperly discounted, the court found that the residual functional capacity assessment was not supported by substantial evidence. The hypothetical presented to the vocational expert therefore did not include all of Li’s limitations, so the administrative law judge could not properly rely on that testimony.

Remedy and Disposition

The court concluded that the record was fully developed, the administrative law judge had failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting important evidence, and crediting that evidence as true would require a finding that Li was disabled. The court also found that the record as a whole did not create serious doubt about Li’s disability. It therefore ordered a remand for calculation and award of benefits rather than another administrative hearing.

Judge Edward J. Davila GRANTED Li’s motion for summary judgment, DENIED the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, REVERSED the Commissioner’s final decision, and REMANDED for calculation and award of benefits.