Belvin v. Berryhill

Background

Gregory Lewis Belvin applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI on May 22, 2014. An administrative law judge denied the claim, and the Appeals Council later denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Belvin then sought review in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The administrative law judge found that Belvin had severe impairments involving paranoid schizophrenia and polysubstance abuse. At the third step of the Social Security Administration’s disability analysis, the administrative law judge found that Belvin’s impairments, including substance-use disorders, met or medically equaled listed impairments. The administrative law judge nevertheless found that Belvin would not be disabled if he stopped using substances and concluded that substance use was a contributing factor material to the disability determination.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that drug or alcohol addiction cannot be a contributing factor material to a disability determination. Under Social Security Ruling 13-2p, the decision-maker must determine whether the claimant would remain disabled without substance use. If the record does not show the separate effects of substance-use treatment and treatment for a co-occurring mental disorder, substance use is not material.

The administrative law judge relied heavily on the testimony of Dr. Strahl, a non-treating, non-examining medical expert. But Dr. Strahl acknowledged that Belvin had at times met a listed impairment before using illicit substances and could not say that Belvin would avoid another psychotic break while continuing injectable medication. The court also noted that Belvin was living in a highly structured treatment setting and that his improvement could have resulted from medication compliance and residential treatment, not only from abstinence.

Because the record could not separate the effects of medication compliance and residential placement from the effects of abstinence, the court held that the administrative law judge erred in finding Belvin’s drug use material. The court did not decide Belvin’s remaining arguments about the evaluation of medical opinions and his credibility.

Disposition

The court found that remand for an award of benefits was appropriate because there were no outstanding issues requiring resolution. The administrative law judge had found that Belvin’s impairments, including the substance-use disorders, met or medically equaled the listed impairments, and the court found that the materiality finding was the only reason benefits were denied.

Judge Kandis Westmore granted Belvin’s motion for summary judgment, denied the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the action to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for an immediate award of benefits.