Tabor v. Berryhill

Background

Lori Tabor sought disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, claiming disability beginning September 17, 2013. The administrative law judge denied her application, finding that she remained insured through December 31, 2013, but that her multiple sclerosis, cannabis addiction, back pain, and affective disorder were not severe, either individually or together, through that date. The judge therefore concluded that Tabor was not disabled. The Appeals Council declined to review the decision.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court reviewed the Commissioner’s decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), asking whether it was supported by substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate—and whether the correct legal standards were applied.

Step-Two Severity Finding

At step two of the disability analysis, an administrative law judge determines whether a medically determinable impairment significantly limits basic work activities. The court explained that this is a low threshold intended to screen out only weak claims, and that a claim should be ended at this step only when the conclusion that the impairment is not severe is clearly established by medical evidence.

The administrative law judge found that Tabor’s multiple sclerosis was not severe based on certain normal physical examinations and the absence of a work-status form from before December 31, 2013. The court concluded that this reasoning improperly overlooked other evidence. Records from September 16, 2013, described left-leg and left-hand pain, spasms, difficulty walking, and a doctor’s issuance of a handicapped placard. A December 16, 2013, record described dizziness, unsteadiness, and a somewhat unsteady gait, and referred to extending Tabor’s disability or limited-duty status.

The court held that the administrative law judge selectively cited the medical record and failed to address evidence bearing on Tabor’s functional limitations. Because the judge stopped the disability analysis at step two, the error was not harmless. The court therefore found that the determination that Tabor’s multiple sclerosis was not severe was not supported by substantial evidence.

Evaluation of Tabor’s Testimony

The court also considered the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Tabor’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. Because the judge did not find that Tabor was malingering, the judge needed specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting her testimony about the severity of her symptoms.

The court found that the judge did not meet that standard. The judge did not identify clearly which of Tabor’s statements were being rejected. The court also found it unclear how Tabor’s descriptions of her condition in 2015 and 2016 were relevant to whether her multiple sclerosis was severe before December 31, 2013. To the extent the judge relied on Tabor’s statements about her condition in 2013, the court found that her testimony appeared consistent with medical evidence describing spasms, weakness, numbness, difficulty walking, dizziness, an unsteady gait, and work-related limitations.

Disposition

The court granted Tabor’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. It remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the order. On remand, the administrative law judge must reconsider Tabor’s medical record as a whole and provide legally adequate reasons for finding that her medically determinable impairments were severe or not severe. The court did not direct an immediate award of benefits.