D.H. v. Saul
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:20-cv-07230
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 13
In D.H. v. Saul, Judge Beeler granted D.H.’s summary-judgment motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the disability-benefits decision for further proceedings.
D.H.’s claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits was sent back to the Commissioner for further proceedings; the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.
What happened
D.H. v. Saul concerned D.H.’s request for Social Security disability insurance benefits after an administrative law judge found that he was not disabled. D.H. said a traumatic brain injury caused memory, concentration, multitasking, and information-processing problems.
The court ruled that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain why D.H.’s testimony about his symptoms was not fully consistent with the evidence. The judge identified no specific testimony that was not credible and did not identify the medical or other evidence that undermined it.
The court granted D.H.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and sent the case back for further proceedings rather than ordering benefits. Judge Beeler issued the order.
The detailed version
- D.H. v. Saul · No. 3:20-cv-07230
- Laurel Beeler
- Oct. 8, 2021
Background
D.H. sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s final decision denying his claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. D.H. alleged that a December 2017 accident caused an organic traumatic brain injury, resulting in problems with memory, concentration, multitasking, and processing information.
Medical records described a closed head injury, facial fractures, a concussion, possible subtle traumatic brain injury on magnetic-resonance imaging, executive dysfunction, decreased short-term memory, and cognitive-linguistic impairment. Treating doctors reported significant limitations, while a consulting psychologist found an unimpaired memory during a one-session evaluation and described the testing results as low-average. The administrative law judge found traumatic brain injury to be a severe impairment but determined that D.H. could perform a restricted range of medium work. The judge found that he could not perform his past work but could perform other jobs, including hospital cleaner, industrial cleaner, and stores laborer.
Issue and Analysis
D.H. challenged the administrative law judge’s treatment of his testimony about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms. When a claimant provides objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, and there is no evidence of malingering, the administrative law judge must give specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting the testimony.
The court held that the administrative law judge did not meet that requirement. The decision stated that D.H.’s testimony was not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence, but it did not specify which portions of his testimony were rejected or identify which evidence undermined that testimony. Summarizing the medical record without identifying the inconsistencies was not a specific, clear, and convincing reason to reject D.H.’s testimony.
Disposition
The court granted D.H.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the order. The court did not direct the Commissioner to award benefits. Judge Laurel Beeler signed the order on October 8, 2021.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.