Howard v. Berryhill

Background

Wynette Howard challenged an administrative law judge’s denial of her claims for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) under Title II and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The opinion’s caption identifies Andrew Saul as the defendant. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, meaning each asked the court to rule in its favor based on the administrative record.

Howard suffered a ruptured brain aneurysm, a subarachnoid hemorrhage, and a heart attack on February 11, 1999. An earlier administrative decision awarded her SSDI and SSI for a closed period from December 10, 2010, through July 21, 2013, but found that her disability ended when she returned to work on July 22, 2013. Howard was fired in March 2014 and had not worked since. She filed new applications seeking benefits beginning December 10, 2010.

A different administrative law judge declined to reopen the earlier award, found that Howard had worked at a level considered substantial gainful activity from July 2013 through March 2014, and denied her claims based on her aneurysm-related impairments.

Jurisdiction and reviewable periods

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the earlier determination awarding benefits from December 10, 2010, through July 21, 2013, because the later administrative law judge had denied Howard’s request to reopen that determination and no constitutional challenge was presented.

The court held that it could review the earlier determination concerning July 22, 2013, through November 6, 2013, because the later administrative law judge had effectively reconsidered Howard’s disability during that period. The court also stated that the later denial of disability after November 6, 2013, was reviewable under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

SSDI trial-work-period error

The court held that Howard was entitled to SSDI benefits from July 22, 2013, through March 24, 2014. Federal law protects a nine-month trial work period for an SSDI beneficiary; work during that period cannot be used to show that the person’s disability ended. Howard worked for eight months before being fired.

The court concluded that both administrative decisions improperly relied on that work. The later administrative law judge also incorrectly applied a regulation involving a six-month limit for unsuccessful work attempts. The court held that this rule applied to the SSI claim, not the SSDI claim, and that using it for SSDI was legal error.

SSI claim

The court held that Howard was not entitled to SSI benefits while she worked from July 22, 2013, through March 24, 2014. Under the applicable SSI regulation, an unsuccessful work attempt cannot exceed six months. Howard worked at least eight months at wages above the substantial-gainful-activity level before she was laid off.

Evaluation of Howard’s testimony

The court held that the later administrative law judge legally erred in discounting Howard’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms. Because the judge found medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms and found no evidence of malingering, the judge needed to give specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting the testimony.

The court found that the judge’s statement that Howard’s symptoms were not fully consistent with the medical and other evidence was too general. The judge also relied on Howard’s lack of ongoing treatment, but the medical records indicated that her cognitive problems were chronic and that her doctors did not identify treatment likely to cure them. The court concluded that the two reasons the judge gave were legally insufficient.

Remand for an award of benefits

The court applied the “credit-as-true” rule, which can require an award of benefits when the record is complete, the administrative law judge lacked legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, and accepting that evidence would require a finding of disability. The court found that the administrative record was fully developed, the factual issues had been resolved, and further proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

The vocational expert testified that a person who regularly needed reminders about how to perform a job would have employability difficulties and that missing two or more workdays per month would make a person unemployable. The court found that Howard’s testimony, if accepted, described both limitations. It therefore remanded the case to the administrative law judge for calculation and award of benefits.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Howard’s motion for summary judgment. It also granted in part and denied in part Saul’s cross-motion. The court held that Howard was entitled to SSDI benefits from July 22, 2013, to the present and SSI benefits from March 8, 2015, to the present. It remanded the case to the administrative law judge for calculation and award of those benefits. The court did not review the earlier award covering December 10, 2010, through July 21, 2013.