Jin v. Berryhill

Background

Kang Jin sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for supplemental disability benefits. Jin alleged that he became disabled on December 5, 2012, and filed his application on May 25, 2015. After the Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration, an Administrative Law Judge held a hearing and denied the application on January 9, 2018.

Jin moved for summary judgment and asked the court to remand the case for payment of benefits or, alternatively, for further proceedings. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

Legal standard

The court explained that it may reverse the Commissioner’s decision if the decision is based on legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means more than a slight amount of evidence but less than a preponderance—evidence that a reasonable person could accept as sufficient.

Social Security disability claims are evaluated through a five-step process. At step two, the decision-maker determines whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. The court described this step as a minimal screening requirement. An impairment may be found non-severe only when the evidence shows that it has no more than a minimal effect on the person’s ability to perform basic work activities. If non-severity is not clearly established by medical evidence, the evaluation must continue to step three.

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision

The Administrative Law Judge found that Jin had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the application date. At step two, the judge identified diabetes mellitus, affective disorders, and anxiety disorders but found that those impairments, individually or in combination, were not severe. The judge therefore found Jin not disabled without proceeding to later steps.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the Administrative Law Judge erred by finding Jin’s impairments non-severe at step two. Although the judge stated that Social Security Ruling 85-28 had been considered, the court found that the ruling was not properly applied.

To reach the step-two finding, the Administrative Law Judge gave little weight to the opinions of every treating and examining physician, citing limited treatment records and concerns about Jin’s credibility. The judge apparently gave greater weight to two nonexamining consultants who had not reviewed Jin’s most recent treatment records. The court stated that this weighing of the evidence and assessment of credibility were more appropriate at step three.

The court found that two examining opinions concerning Jin’s physical limitations and two examining opinions concerning his mental limitations, considered together, showed more than minimal work limitations. That evidence was enough to satisfy the minimal step-two requirement and required the evaluation to continue to step three. The court also addressed the Commissioner’s argument that Jin’s diabetes had no complications and that treatment notes contradicted his fatigue testimony. The court noted that the Administrative Law Judge had relied on treatment notes from August 2015 in which Jin denied fatigue, and explained that an Administrative Law Judge may not disregard testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not affirmatively support it.

Disposition

The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. It remanded the case for further proceedings at step two. On remand, the Administrative Law Judge must properly evaluate the medical evidence under applicable law and consistently with the opinion.