Tubolino v. Berryhill

Background

Jeffrey Tubolino sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council had previously sent the matter back for another hearing, but the administrative law judge again denied the application on January 11, 2017. The Appeals Council denied further review on March 1, 2018. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.

Tubolino argued that the administrative law judge improperly rejected the opinions of his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Viet Le, and examining psychologists Dr. Sara Bowerman and Dr. Janine Marinos. He also challenged the rejection of his own testimony and the reports submitted by his father, David Tubolino. The administrative law judge had found that Tubolino had an alcohol-induced mood disorder and substance-abuse conditions, but had rejected or minimized evidence of bipolar disorder, amnestic disorder, social phobia, anxiety, and related work limitations. The administrative law judge concluded that Tubolino could perform his past work as a fish packer.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge improperly rejected the lay evidence from Tubolino’s father. The stated reason—that Tubolino’s limited daily activities could not be objectively verified—was not a valid reason specific to that witness. The court also found that the father’s reports were substantially consistent with the opinions of the treating and examining doctors.

The court held that the administrative law judge failed to give the specific, clear, and convincing reasons required to reject Tubolino’s testimony. The administrative law judge relied on general statements and ordinary activities such as speaking with family members, greeting people, visiting libraries and churches, shopping, and going to parks. The court found that these activities did not undermine Tubolino’s testimony about his mental symptoms and work-related limitations. The court also found no adequate basis for the administrative law judge’s speculation that the symptoms would not exist apart from alcohol dependence.

The court further held that the administrative law judge improperly rejected the medical evidence. Three doctors had diagnosed or identified evidence of bipolar disorder or related mental impairments, and the administrative law judge did not provide adequate reasons for finding those conditions non-severe. The court found no substantial-evidence basis for rejecting Dr. Le’s opinion that Tubolino had marked limitations in comprehension, memory, attention, concentration, social interaction, and maintaining a routine. It also found that the administrative law judge misread a note referring to a questionnaire and had no evidence that Dr. Le’s signed medical source statement was completed by someone else.

The court found that the reasons given for rejecting Dr. Bowerman’s and Dr. Marinos’s opinions were also legally insufficient. The administrative law judge improperly relied on selected treatment observations and the idea that the opinions were based only on Tubolino’s subjective reports, even though the psychologists had conducted examinations, diagnostic testing, and record reviews. The court also found that the non-examining medical advisor, Dr. Richard Cohen, had not explained his conclusions and that his opinion was inconsistent with the record. The court therefore found that it did not provide substantial evidence supporting the administrative law judge’s decision.

Remedy

The court applied the three-part credit-as-true test, which can require an award of benefits when the record is fully developed, the administrative law judge failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, and crediting that evidence would require a disability finding. The court found all three requirements satisfied. The vocational expert had testified that a person with the credited limitations would have no work in the national economy, and the court found no serious doubt in the record that Tubolino was disabled.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, DENIED Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, REVERSED the administrative law judge’s determination, and REMANDED the matter for calculation and award of benefits. A separate judgment was to issue.