M.G. v. Berryhill

Background

M.G. applied for disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, alleging that she had been unable to work since July 2, 2012 because of several back, nerve, and pain-related conditions. After a hearing, the administrative law judge found that M.G. had severe impairments but that they did not meet the severity of an impairment listed in the Social Security regulations. The judge found that M.G. retained the capacity to perform limited light work and could perform her past work as a psychiatrist or other work, such as case manager. The judge therefore concluded that M.G. was not disabled.

M.G. appealed to the Appeals Council and submitted medical records and reports dated from January 2014 through April 28, 2018. The Appeals Council denied review, stating that the new evidence did not show a reasonable probability of changing the outcome. M.G. then sought judicial review.

Issues and analysis

M.G. argued that the Appeals Council failed to consider the additional evidence and that the administrative law judge improperly gave little weight to opinions from her treating physicians. The Commissioner argued that the Appeals Council properly declined to consider the evidence because it was duplicative and M.G. had not shown good cause for submitting it late.

The court disagreed with the Commissioner’s position concerning the additional evidence. The administrative law judge had noted that no medical records after December 2016 had been submitted and had found that M.G.’s condition improved by the end of that year. The later records showed that M.G. continued receiving significant pain treatment during 2017 and 2018. They also addressed surgery, performed one month before the hearing, to remove an infected spinal stimulator. The court found that the records could be relevant because the stimulator had helped manage M.G.’s pain, while the records before the administrative law judge did not describe her condition after the surgery.

The court also held that the administrative law judge erred in giving little weight to Dr. Hsieh’s opinions. The judge failed to consider M.G.’s medical records in context and instead isolated evidence of improvement. The court noted that improvements after injections appeared short-lived and were sometimes accompanied by other pain or symptoms. The additional evidence also showed continuing pain.

The court held that the administrative law judge did not err in giving little weight to Dr. Chen’s opinion. Although the reasoning was brief, Dr. Chen’s 2013 opinion did not account for much of the medical record available to the administrative law judge.

Disposition

The court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the administrative law judge must consider the evidence submitted to the Appeals Council and reweigh the opinion evidence.