Tudor v. Berryhill

Background

Debra Cohen Tudor sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision for purposes of judicial review. Both sides moved for summary judgment, and both sought a remand, but they disagreed about the remedy. Tudor requested immediate calculation and payment of benefits; the Commissioner requested additional administrative proceedings.

Tudor reported debilitating migraines occurring 10 to 20 days per month, with symptoms including pain, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, fatigue, balance problems, insomnia, and sensitivity to light and sound. Her treating primary-care provider, Dr. Suzanne Sims, opined that Tudor would be off-task more than 25 percent of the time, would be unable to complete a normal workday on five or more days per month, and would need lengthy unscheduled breaks during migraine flare-ups. Dr. Susan Hutchinson, a headache specialist, later examined Tudor and reviewed her records. She concluded that Tudor’s migraines were primarily hormone-related, were not caused by medication overuse, and had been disabling since late 2014.

The administrative law judge found Tudor’s migraine impairment medically determinable but non-severe at Step Two, concluding that it caused no limitations in work-related functioning. The decision did not discuss Dr. Sims’s opinion. The judge also discounted Tudor’s testimony using a general statement that her allegations were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence. The Appeals Council considered Dr. Hutchinson’s later submission but found that it did not show a reasonable probability of changing the outcome.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Step Two is a low-threshold screening stage intended to eliminate only the most minor or plainly unsupported impairments. If a claimant meets that standard, the administrative law judge must find the impairment severe and continue to the next step.

The court held that the administrative law judge improperly rejected the medical evidence. Under the standards applied by the court, an administrative law judge must give legally sufficient reasons supported by substantial evidence when rejecting a treating or examining physician’s opinion. The court found that the administrative law judge did not meet that requirement because the decision did not mention Dr. Sims’s opinion at all. The court also found that the Commissioner failed to give appropriate greater weight to Dr. Hutchinson’s opinion as a specialist addressing a condition the court described as poorly understood in the broader medical community.

The court further held that Tudor’s symptom testimony had to be credited because the administrative law judge’s boilerplate explanation did not identify which testimony was rejected or what evidence contradicted it. The Commissioner conceded that the administrative law judge’s failure to address Dr. Sims’s opinion was an error supporting remand.

Remand Remedy

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s credit-as-true rule, which can require an immediate benefits award when the administrative law judge gave legally insufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, no outstanding issues remain, and the record shows that the claimant would have to be found disabled if the evidence were credited. The court credited Dr. Sims’s and Dr. Hutchinson’s opinions and Tudor’s consistent testimony as true as a matter of law.

The court rejected the Commissioner’s arguments that conflicts required further proceedings. It found that the earlier statement by Dr. Joshi, the non-examining consultant Dr. Kiger’s opinion, Tudor’s treatment history, and an isolated note about earlier exercise did not create serious doubt about disability or require further record development. The court also relied on vocational-expert testimony that there was no work in the national economy for a person likely to miss as little as four days of work per month.

Disposition

The court granted Tudor’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s motion for remand for further proceedings. It reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the matter for the immediate calculation and award of benefits.