Keyes v. Berryhill

Background

Allah Keyes applied for Supplemental Security Income in 2007 and was found disabled. The Social Security Administration later determined that his disability continued in 2012. In 2016, however, the agency determined that he was no longer disabled. A state-agency disability hearing officer upheld that determination, and Administrative Law Judge Robert Milton Erickson later found that Keyes’s disability ended on May 23, 2016. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Keyes sought judicial review. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which ask the court to decide whether the administrative decision should be upheld or set aside based on the administrative record.

Issue and governing standard

When the Commissioner reviews whether disability benefits should continue, the agency must determine whether there has been medical improvement and whether that improvement is related to the claimant’s ability to work. “Medical improvement” requires a comparison of the medical severity of the impairments at the time of the most recent favorable disability decision—the comparison point decision—with the claimant’s current medical condition. The court reviews the Commissioner’s decision for legal error and substantial evidence, meaning more than a minimal amount of evidence but less than a preponderance.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge’s finding of medical improvement was legally erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. The administrative law judge stated that medical improvement occurred and that the medical evidence supported the finding, but did not identify or analyze particular symptoms, signs, laboratory findings, or other medical evidence showing a decrease in the severity of Keyes’s earlier impairments.

The administrative law judge also did not cite the medical records showing Keyes’s condition at the time of the 2012 comparison point decision. The actual favorable medical decision was not in the administrative record, and other earlier records discussed by the disability hearing officer also appeared to be missing. The court explained that merely listing the earlier and current impairments and residual functional capacity—the most a person can still do despite limitations—does not replace the required comparison of prior and current medical evidence. Nor could the disability hearing officer’s summary substitute for the administrative law judge’s own analysis.

Because a valid finding of medical improvement was necessary before the administrative law judge could proceed through the rest of the disability-continuation analysis, the error was not harmless. The court therefore did not reach Keyes’s other arguments concerning the weighing of medical evidence, the residual functional capacity finding, or questioning of the vocational expert.

Disposition

The court granted Keyes’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the order. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in Keyes’s favor. The opinion does not state that benefits were immediately reinstated.