M.V. v. Saul

Background

M.V. sought disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. She alleged that she had been unable to work since December 28, 2015. An administrative law judge held a hearing at which M.V. testified through a Spanish-language interpreter. She said that she had completed ninth grade in Nicaragua, had no schooling in the United States, and had previously performed unskilled work as a hand packager.

The administrative law judge found that M.V. had several severe physical impairments, including degenerative spine disease, right shoulder problems, degenerative joint disease in both knees, and obesity. The judge found that she could perform less than a full range of light work but could not perform her past relevant work. At the final step of the disability analysis, the judge found that M.V. had a limited education and could communicate in English, and therefore could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Appeals Council declined to review that decision.

Issue and arguments

M.V. challenged only the finding about her English literacy. She argued that the record did not support the administrative law judge’s rejection of her claim that she could not read or write in English. She requested an award of benefits beginning when she reached age 50 or, alternatively, a remand for a proper literacy finding. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge’s findings were supported by sufficient evidence.

The court explained that the ability to communicate in English is different from literacy. Under the applicable regulations, a person is considered illiterate if the person cannot read or write a simple message, such as instructions or inventory lists, even if the person can sign their name. The Commissioner bears the burden of establishing that a claimant is literate.

Court’s analysis

The administrative law judge relied on records that sometimes listed English as M.V.’s preferred language, a surgeon’s description of her as both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking, a hospital record concerning written discharge instructions, and M.V.’s signatures on English-language consent forms. The court concluded that this evidence was insufficient to establish that M.V. could read or write a simple message in English.

The court noted that the administrative law judge identified no evidence showing that M.V. could write in English, and the evidence about her ability to read English was vague. Other records suggested that M.V. needed help with paperwork related to her disability claim. Forms indicated that Spanish was her preferred language for reading or speaking and that she could not write more than her name in English. The court also noted that the Social Security Administration provided M.V. with Spanish-language documents. Signing English-language forms, by itself, did not establish literacy.

The administrative law judge also did not ask M.V. at the hearing about her ability to read or write in English. Her testimony that she could speak “a little” English and could understand basic material did not resolve the literacy issue. The court therefore held that the record did not contain enough evidence to support a specific finding about her literacy.

Disposition

The court granted M.V.’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. It remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order, including further development of the record concerning M.V.’s literacy. The court did not award benefits and directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the file.

Judge

The order was signed by Virginia K. Demarchi, United States Magistrate Judge.