Harmon v. Berryhill

Background

Michael Harmon 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 denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the final decision subject to review in federal court.

Harmon filed his application on November 18, 2014, using that date as the alleged onset date of disability. The administrative law judge denied the application on July 19, 2017, and the Appeals Council denied review on May 23, 2018. Harmon later filed another application, which the Commissioner granted, finding him disabled beginning May 31, 2018.

Issues and Parties’ Positions

Harmon argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated his impairments apart from his substance use, incorrectly weighed medical opinions, and improperly evaluated his testimony. He asked the court to apply the “credit-as-true” doctrine, under which certain improperly rejected evidence may be treated as established, and to order immediate payment of benefits. Alternatively, he sought a limited remand addressing only whether he was disabled before May 31, 2018.

The Commissioner acknowledged that the administrative law judge’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and requested a remand for further proceedings. The Commissioner asked the administrative law judge to reevaluate the medical opinions, consider medical-expert evidence as needed, assess whether drug addiction or alcoholism was material to the disability decision, reconsider Harmon’s statements and ability to work, and obtain vocational-expert evidence if necessary. The Commissioner opposed limiting the remand to the period before May 31, 2018.

Medical Evidence and Immediate Benefits

The record contained conflicting opinions from three examining consultants. Jonathan Howard, Psy.D., and Lesleigh Franklin, Ph.D., described moderate, marked, or extreme limitations in several areas of mental functioning. Salma Khan, M.D., found Harmon unimpaired in several areas and only mildly impaired in the others.

The court declined to order immediate payment of benefits. It reasoned that the interaction between Harmon’s substance use and his impairments made the evidence more complex, that the conflicting opinions made the case unsuitable for immediate application of the credit-as-true doctrine, and that further development was needed to explain differences between the 2015 and 2017 evaluations. The court therefore denied Harmon’s request for an immediate award of benefits.

Scope of Remand

The court held that the later application was not before it and that it lacked authority in this case to prevent the Commissioner from reopening or revisiting that later determination under the applicable regulations. But because Harmon had already been found disabled beginning May 31, 2018, the court limited the relevant period for the remand to November 18, 2014, through May 31, 2018.

The court ordered further proceedings only to determine whether Harmon was disabled during that closed period. It limited the additional evidence the administrative law judge could accept on remand to that determination.

Disposition

The court held that Harmon’s Motion for Summary Judgment was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Commissioner’s Motion for Remand was also GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The case was remanded for further proceedings limited to determining whether Harmon was disabled between November 18, 2014, and May 31, 2018.