Patricia M. v. Saul

Background

The Social Security Administration awarded Patricia M. disability insurance benefits in 2011 based on bipolar disorder and anxiety. After a continuing disability review, the agency decided that her condition had improved and that she was no longer disabled. An administrative law judge later denied continued benefits, finding that she had medically improved and could work as a janitor. The Appeals Council denied further review.

Patricia sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Both sides moved for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record.

Medical-improvement finding

The court held that the administrative law judge did not properly apply the Ninth Circuit’s presumption that a person previously found disabled remains disabled unless the Commissioner produces evidence showing that the person’s condition has changed. The administrative law judge stated only that the medical evidence showed a decrease in the severity of Patricia’s impairments. He did not adequately compare the severity of her bipolar disorder and anxiety at the earlier favorable decision with their severity later, or identify supporting symptoms, signs, or laboratory findings.

The court therefore concluded that the finding of medical improvement was legally erroneous and was not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means more than a minimal amount of evidence but less than enough to prove a point by a greater-than-50-percent standard.

Work assessment

The court also held that the administrative law judge relied on an incomplete hypothetical question to the vocational expert. The question included limits on the type and pace of work but did not include evidence that Patricia might miss more than three days of work each month because of her symptoms. The vocational expert had testified that such regular absences would prevent steady employment. Because the hypothetical omitted a supported limitation, the vocational expert’s testimony could not support the decision.

Treating-provider evidence

The court further held that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain why he gave greater weight to opinions from non-treating agency consultants than to opinions from Patricia’s long-term psychiatrist and therapists. The administrative law judge relied on Patricia’s daily activities, mental-status evaluations, and other scores, but the court found that this material did not genuinely contradict the treating providers’ opinions. The treating providers knew about those activities and records yet still concluded that Patricia could not maintain regular employment.

Disposition

Judge William Alsup granted Patricia M.’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court vacated the administrative law judge’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court stated that it was not addressing all of Patricia’s claimed errors and that additional issues would require greater specificity on remand.