F.H. v. Saul

Background

F.H. had previously been found disabled under both Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. After a continuing disability review, the Social Security Administration determined that his disability ended on June 1, 2018. An administrative law judge affirmed that conclusion, finding that F.H. had medically improved and could perform jobs such as machine feeder, mail clerk, or store laborer. The Appeals Council declined review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

F.H. has schizophrenia and anxiety-related treatment history. He challenged the administrative law judge’s treatment of his testimony, medical opinions, mental impairments, and residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his impairments. He also argued that his right to representation and to a fair hearing was violated when the administrative law judge denied a request to postpone the hearing so the Homeless Action Center could represent him. F.H. asked for benefits to be awarded immediately, while the Commissioner sought a remand for additional administrative proceedings.

Court’s Analysis

The Commissioner did not oppose F.H.’s summary-judgment motion and conceded that the decision finding that F.H. was no longer disabled should be reversed. The dispute before the court was therefore the appropriate remedy: an immediate award of benefits or further proceedings.

The court applied the credit-as-true rule, which can require an immediate benefits award when the administrative law judge failed to give legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, no important issues remain to be resolved, and the record leaves no serious doubt that the claimant is disabled. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that F.H. had shown the first requirement because he had made substantial arguments that the administrative law judge improperly rejected his testimony and medical evidence.

The court concluded that the other requirements were not met. The record was not fully developed regarding F.H.’s specific limitations between June 1, 2018, and September 15, 2020. The court noted that F.H. had limited insight into his condition, had difficulty answering questions about his limitations, and might have provided more useful testimony with the assistance of counsel. The record also lacked regular treatment notes for part of the relevant period. In addition, the administrative law judge rejected treating psychologist J. Chen’s opinions without adequately developing the record about her assessment of F.H.’s specific work-related limitations.

The court also described the denial of the continuance as particularly harmful. The administrative law judge had incorrectly stated that F.H. had previously requested several continuances and was still only seeking possible representation, despite the record showing that the earlier postponement was not requested by F.H. and that the Homeless Action Center had agreed to represent him.

Disposition

The court granted F.H.’s summary-judgment motion and reversed the Commissioner’s decision. It denied F.H.’s motion to remand for an award of benefits and granted the Commissioner’s motion to remand for further administrative proceedings. On remand, F.H. was to have an opportunity to submit additional medical and third-party evidence. The Commissioner was directed to revisit the relevant steps in determining whether F.H.’s disability ended, including the severity of any additional impairments, whether an impairment met or equaled a listed impairment, and F.H.’s residual functional capacity.