Kemp v. Commissioner
- Van Keulen
- 5:25-cv-08132
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
In A.K. v. SSA Commissioner, Magistrate Judge Van Keulen reversed the agency's disability onset date and remanded for payment of benefits covering August 15, 2014 to August 19, 2019.
People who have applied for Social Security disability benefits and whose disability onset date was disputed by an ALJ, particularly those who turned 50 during the disputed period and whose treating physician's opinions were rejected, and who have had their cases remanded multiple times without resolution.
What happened
In A.K. v. SSA Commissioner (No. 25-cv-08132-SVK), Plaintiff A.K. filed for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income in December 2017, claiming disability beginning August 15, 2014. After three hearings and two prior remands by the Social Security Appeals Council, an Administrative Law Judge found A.K. disabled only as of August 20, 2019, denying benefits for the earlier period. A.K. challenged that earlier period — August 15, 2014 through August 19, 2019 — in this federal court action.
The Commissioner conceded that the ALJ made errors in evaluating the evidence for the disputed period and agreed the case should be remanded, but argued the remand should be for further agency proceedings rather than for an immediate award of benefits. A.K. argued the court should apply the 'credit-as-true' rule — a legal standard allowing courts to order a direct benefits award when the record is fully developed, the agency erred in rejecting evidence, and crediting the wrongly rejected evidence would require a finding of disability. The key disputed evidence included opinions from A.K.'s long-time treating doctor, Dr. Norman Banks, who found A.K. limited to less than two hours of sitting, standing, and walking per day with an onset date of February 2014, and a medical expert, Dr. Beverly Yamour, who found similarly restrictive limitations.
Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen found all three elements of the credit-as-true rule satisfied for the entire disputed period. The court found the record fully developed after eight years and three ALJ hearings, the Commissioner conceded ALJ error, and crediting Dr. Banks' opinion would limit A.K. to sedentary work — which, combined with A.K.'s age (she turned 50 on December 10, 2016), education, and work history, directs a finding of disability under the Social Security Medical-Vocational Guidelines. For the period before A.K. turned 50, the court found the Commissioner identified no evidence contradicting Dr. Banks' assessment that A.K. was limited to sedentary work. Accordingly, the court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded for calculation and payment of benefits for the full period from August 15, 2014 to August 19, 2019.
The detailed version
- Kemp v. Commissioner · No. 5:25-cv-08132
- Van Keulen
- Aug. 21, 2026
Background
Plaintiff A.K. filed applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income in December 2017, alleging disability beginning August 15, 2014. The case went through three Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings. The first ALJ denied all disability claims in February 2020, finding only one severe impairment (depression) and concluding A.K. could perform medium work. The Social Security Appeals Council vacated that decision and remanded in October 2020, citing the ALJ's failure to obtain an ordered orthopedic consultative examination and failure to evaluate obesity.
After the first remand, a second ALJ issued a partially favorable decision in February 2023, finding A.K. disabled beginning August 20, 2019 — but not before. The second ALJ found that prior to August 20, 2019, A.K. could perform medium work. The Appeals Council remanded again in December 2023, specifically noting that the second ALJ failed to address the opinion of treating physician Dr. Norman Banks (who found onset in February 2014 and very restrictive functional limits), failed to adequately explain its treatment of the opinion of state agency consultant Dr. Joan Bradus, and failed to adequately evaluate carpal tunnel syndrome and ulnar neuropathy.
After the second remand, a third ALJ issued a decision on August 8, 2024, again finding A.K. disabled as of August 20, 2019 but not before. The third ALJ found a broader set of severe impairments — including degenerative disc disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, obesity, fibromyalgia, ulnar neuropathy, sleep apnea, and depressive disorder — but still concluded A.K. could perform light work (with limitations) before August 20, 2019 and was thus not disabled for the earlier period. The Appeals Council denied A.K.'s request for review of the third decision, making it the final agency decision subject to federal court review.
Legal Framework
Federal courts reviewing Social Security decisions may affirm, modify, or reverse the Commissioner's decision, with or without remanding for a new hearing. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). When an ALJ error is found, courts ordinarily remand for further agency proceedings. However, under the Ninth Circuit's "credit-as-true" rule, a court may instead remand directly for an award of benefits if three conditions are met:
- The record is fully developed and further proceedings would not serve a useful purpose.
- The ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting claimant testimony or medical opinions.
- If the improperly rejected evidence were credited as true, the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled.
Even if all three factors are met, the court retains discretion to remand for further proceedings if there is "serious doubt" that the claimant is actually disabled. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014).
The Social Security Medical-Vocational Guidelines (commonly called "the grids") direct disability findings based on a claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity (RFC — what work a claimant can still do despite limitations). Specifically, Grid Rule 201.12 directs a finding of disability for a person limited to sedentary work (the least demanding work category) who is "approaching advanced age" (ages 50–54) with a high school education and no prior relevant work experience. The grids do not compel a disability finding for "younger individuals" aged 45–49 with the same profile, though a finding of disability may still be appropriate for some individuals in that age range who cannot perform even a full range of sedentary work.
The Parties' Dispute
Both parties agreed the case must be remanded. The Commissioner conceded that the ALJ erred in evaluating the evidence for the disputed period — August 15, 2014 through August 19, 2019 — stating he was "not disputing Plaintiff's arguments regarding issues in the ALJ's findings for the period prior to August 20, 2019." The disagreement was solely about the type of remand: A.K. sought remand for immediate calculation and payment of benefits under the credit-as-true rule; the Commissioner argued for remand for further agency proceedings.
A.K.'s asserted ALJ errors included: (1) the ALJ's onset date selection lacked substantial evidence and mischaracterized or cherry-picked evidence; (2) the ALJ wrongly rejected A.K.'s symptom testimony about her limitations before August 20, 2019; and (3) the ALJ mishandled medical opinion evidence, including misreading Dr. Bradus' opinion (which covered only a 7-month period from May 2017 to January 2018, not the full 2014–2019 period), improperly discounting treating physician Dr. Banks' opinion (finding onset in February 2014 with severe functional restrictions), failing to properly evaluate nonexamining expert Dr. Beverly Yamour's interrogatory responses, and issuing an RFC determination not supported by any medical source.
Analysis and Ruling
Element One: State of the Record
The court found the record fully developed. The case had been litigated for more than eight years with three ALJ hearings; A.K. had already been found disabled as of August 20, 2019, leaving only the onset date at issue; and neither party argued additional medical opinions were needed. The court rejected the Commissioner's argument that the record's conflicts and ambiguities justified further proceedings, citing Garrison for the proposition that allowing an ALJ another opportunity to reconsider evidence it already wrongly rejected does not qualify as a "useful purpose" under the first credit-as-true element.
Element Two: ALJ Error
The Commissioner's concession that he was "not disputing Plaintiff's arguments regarding issues in the ALJ's findings for the period prior to August 20, 2019" satisfied this element.
Element Three: Whether the ALJ Would Be Required to Find Disability
The court analyzed the disputed period in two parts, based on A.K.'s 50th birthday on December 10, 2016.
December 10, 2016 to August 19, 2019 (A.K. age 50 and above)
Dr. Banks, who treated A.K. for eight years, opined in January 2021 that A.K. was limited to less than two hours of standing, walking, and sitting per workday, with an onset date of February 2014. Dr. Yamour opined in April 2024 that A.K. was limited to 30 minutes of standing and one hour of walking per workday, citing records from 2017. If Dr. Banks' opinion were credited, A.K. would be limited to sedentary work from her alleged onset date. Combined with her age (50+), education (high school), and work history (no prior relevant work experience), Grid Rule 201.12 would direct a finding of disability. The court found this result mandatory — where the grids direct a disability finding, the ALJ must accept it. The court found no serious doubt of disability for this sub-period and remanded for calculation and payment of benefits from December 10, 2016 to August 19, 2019.
The Commissioner's primary counterargument was Dr. Bradus' January 2018 opinion that A.K. could perform light work. The court distinguished the case on which the Commissioner relied, Washington v. Kijakazi, 72 F.4th 1029 (9th Cir. 2023), because there the ALJ had never evaluated the conflicting medical evidence, whereas here multiple ALJs already had done so repeatedly. The court also noted the Commissioner's own concession of ALJ error undercut reliance on Dr. Bradus' opinion to create serious doubt.
August 15, 2014 to December 9, 2016 (A.K. under age 50)
The grids do not compel a disability finding for this sub-period. However, the court found the Commissioner identified no evidence that conflicted with Dr. Banks' assessment that A.K. was limited to sedentary work during this period. Dr. Bradus' report explicitly stated its RFC assessment covered only May 2017 forward and cited only 2017 medical records. The other records the ALJ cited (AR 826 and 878) were from August and November 2017 — also outside this sub-period. The court concluded that, without any conflicting evidence for the August 15, 2014 through December 9, 2016 period, there was no serious doubt of disability and all three credit-as-true elements were satisfied. The court therefore also remanded for benefits for this sub-period.
Disposition
The court ordered: (1) the Commissioner's decision regarding the disputed time period August 15, 2014 to August 19, 2019 is reversed; and (2) the case is remanded for the calculation and payment of benefits for the period August 15, 2014 to August 19, 2019. The finding of disability beginning August 20, 2019 was not disturbed.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.