Delmon A. v. Saul

Background

Delmon A. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s partially unfavorable disability-benefits decision. The Administrative Law Judge found that Delmon A. had severe depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and borderline intellectual functioning. The judge found him disabled beginning August 28, 2017, but determined that before that date he could perform simple, repetitive, independent work with limits on contact with the public and coworkers, no group work, and no production-paced work. The judge identified dishwasher, landscape-helper, and motel or hotel housekeeper jobs as work available in significant numbers.

The court reviewed the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment asks whether one side is entitled to judgment based on the existing record rather than after a trial. The court’s review was limited to whether the Administrative Law Judge applied the correct legal standards and whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate.

Reasons for Remand

The court found that the Administrative Law Judge’s treatment of medical expert Dr. William Straw’s opinion was unclear. The decision first said the opinion received “great weight” because it was reasonable, consistent with the medical evidence, and supported by treatment records and reported daily activities. Later, however, the decision said the opinion received “little weight” because it conflicted with the finding that Delmon A.’s condition met the criteria for a listed mental disorder. The court declined to infer which explanation the Administrative Law Judge intended and ordered clarification.

The court also held that the Administrative Law Judge might need to reconsider the weight given to opinions from Dr. Paula Chaffee, Dr. Nandini Ganpule, and Dr. Caroline Salvador-Moses because the treatment of Dr. Straw’s opinion could affect the analysis of those opinions.

The court separately found that the Administrative Law Judge did not adequately explain the rejection of Mary Brown’s testimony. The decision relied on her lack of medical training and stated generally that her testimony was inconsistent with medical opinions and observations, but it did not identify the specific testimony accepted or rejected or the specific inconsistencies. The court explained that a lay witness may testify based on personal observations, including how a person functions in the community and what help the person needs.

Finally, the court could not determine whether the Administrative Law Judge properly rejected Delmon A.’s statements about his symptoms. The judge had relied in large part on the medical-opinion analysis, which required clarification. The court therefore directed the Administrative Law Judge to reconsider that issue as appropriate.

Disposition

The court concluded that the Administrative Law Judge had not fully and fairly developed the record, but it was not clear that Delmon A. would necessarily be found disabled for the period at issue. The court therefore declined to order an immediate benefits award and instead required further proceedings.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson granted Delmon A.’s motion for summary judgment, denied Andrew Saul’s cross-motion, reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. The order stated that a separate judgment would be entered and that the clerk would terminate the case.