A.B. v. Saul

Background

A.B. appealed the Commissioner’s denial of his application for Social Security benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. He filed an application for Disabled Adult Child Benefits using his mother’s earnings record and alleged disability beginning October 28, 2000, based on schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. After an earlier court remand and a remand order from the Appeals Council, the administrative law judge again found that A.B. was not disabled before age 22. The Appeals Council denied A.B.’s request for review, and he sought judicial review.

A.B.’s Testimony

The court held that the administrative law judge did not give sufficiently specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting A.B.’s testimony about fatigue, concentration, stress, and other limitations. The court found that the cited medical and other evidence did not identify specific inconsistencies with A.B.’s testimony. It also found that activities such as grooming, shopping, mowing the lawn, washing dishes, vacuuming, and attending school did not contradict his claimed limitations. The court noted that the activities occurred in records from 2009, 2011, and 2014, rather than the 2001–2005 period at issue, and that the administrative law judge mischaracterized those records.

Parents’ Lay Testimony

The court found that the administrative law judge improperly rejected J.B.’s testimony as internally inconsistent. The court determined that J.B.’s testimony was consistent with the third-party reports and with evidence that A.B. struggled in school, needed help studying, and sometimes had to drop or repeat classes. The court also found that S.B.’s statements about A.B.’s fatigue, concentration, irritability, and depression were consistent with the record. Rejecting S.B.’s testimony because he was A.B.’s father was not a proper reason. On remand, the administrative law judge must reevaluate both parents’ testimony and provide specific reasons tied to each witness if rejecting it.

Medical Opinions

The court upheld the administrative law judge’s decision to give great weight to Dr. Wong’s opinion because the judge provided specific, legitimate, and evidence-based reasons. The court also upheld the decision to give little weight to Dr. Bacay’s opinion because Dr. Bacay did not reference the medical records or explain how A.B.’s impairments caused disability or what specific limitations resulted.

The court found errors in the treatment of Dr. Gonzales’s opinion. The administrative law judge relied on A.B.’s ability to attend college, earn an associate degree, and avoid hospitalization, but Dr. Gonzales had not treated A.B. during his college attendance, his records did not extend beyond December 2002, and he had recommended hospitalization when treatment began. The court concluded that the administrative law judge had not provided specific and legitimate reasons for giving the opinion only some weight.

The court likewise found that the reasons for giving only some weight to Dr. Sidhu’s opinion were insufficient. A.B.’s completion of high school and an associate degree was not inconsistent with Dr. Sidhu’s assessment because A.B. was homeschooled, reduced his high-school course load, and took only one or two college classes per semester while earning the degree over four years.

The court also found that the administrative law judge failed to provide a sufficient reason for giving little weight to Mr. Yost’s opinion. Although a social worker was treated as an “other source” rather than an acceptable medical source under the cited regulation, the judge still needed a reason specific to that witness. The court found that Mr. Yost had in fact recognized that medication stabilized A.B.’s condition to some degree, so the judge’s contrary reasoning was not adequate.

Step Five

At step five of the disability process, the burden shifts to the Social Security Administration to show that the claimant can perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The administrative law judge asked a vocational expert whether a person with A.B.’s work profile and residual functional capacity could work. The expert identified medium-exertion jobs as a dishwasher or auto detailer. The court rejected A.B.’s argument that the hypothetical omitted his interaction limitations because the administrative law judge limited him to jobs involving only occasional contact with supervisors, coworkers, and the public. The court therefore found that the administrative law judge met the step-five burden.

Disposition

The court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The administrative law judge must reevaluate A.B.’s testimony, his parents’ testimony, and the opinions of Dr. Gonzales, Dr. Sidhu, and Mr. Yost to determine whether A.B. was disabled in light of that information.