Ahmad H. v. Kijakazi

Background

Ahmad H. sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of an administrative law judge’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. The relevant period ran from his alleged onset date, February 22, 2008, through his date last insured, September 30, 2011.

Ahmad H. filed an earlier application in 2013. An administrative law judge denied that application in May 2015, and Ahmad H. did not appeal to the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council. In 2019, he filed a second application for the same period, alleging physical and mental impairments. After an initial denial on the ground that the earlier decision controlled, the Appeals Council sent the matter back for the administrative law judge to consider whether the 2013 claim should be reopened and whether new evidence concerning Ahmad H.’s mental health affected that analysis.

On remand, the administrative law judge found that the 2013 claim could not be reopened, that the 2019 claim was not barred by the earlier decision, and that Ahmad H. was not disabled during the relevant period. The administrative law judge found severe physical and mental impairments, determined that Ahmad H. retained the capacity for restricted light work, and found at the final step that he could perform jobs such as housekeeper, document preparer, and photocopy machine operator.

Issues and analysis

Ahmad H. argued that the administrative law judge should have used regulations in effect before 2017 when evaluating his treating physician’s opinion and the Department of Veterans Affairs’ finding that he was 100% disabled. He argued that the 2013 claim had effectively been reopened. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the refusal to reopen because Ahmad H. had not shown a “colorable constitutional claim”—a nonfrivolous claim involving a due-process right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Ahmad H. argued that a blank exhibit list attached to the 2015 decision prevented him from understanding the evidence used against him and from appealing. The court disagreed. It found that the ten-page decision described the exhibits and evidence sufficiently for Ahmad H. to identify the records involved. The court characterized the blank exhibit list as a procedural irregularity that did not interfere with a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The court also noted that Ahmad H. was represented by counsel when the 2015 decision was issued. Because the court found no colorable constitutional claim, it treated July 3, 2019, as the filing date and applied the post-2017 standards.

The court rejected Ahmad H.’s argument that Dr. Malancharuvil had found that he met Listing 12.04 during the relevant period. The court explained that the doctor found insufficient objective evidence before 2018, although he found that Ahmad H. met the listing beginning in 2018—seven years after the date last insured.

The court reached a different conclusion on the administrative law judge’s duty to develop the record. That duty requires an administrative law judge to investigate and clarify significant gaps, ambiguities, or conflicts in the evidence. The administrative law judge discounted the opinions of Ahmad H.’s treating physician, Dr. Uzell, and the Veterans Affairs disability determination because they lacked supporting objective findings, while relying on testimony from consulting physicians Dr. Malancharuvil and Dr. Brown. But both consulting physicians expressed uncertainty because important records were missing.

The court found that the record contained unresolved conflicts. Dr. Uzell stated that Ahmad H.’s depression began in early 2008, and Ahmad H. said that the Veterans Affairs determination relied on medical records that were not available to the administrative law judge or the consulting physicians. The court found no indication that the administrative law judge sought the records underlying the Veterans Affairs determination, obtained additional information from Dr. Uzell, or otherwise investigated the gaps. As a result, the court could not determine what evidence supported the agency’s decision or whether that evidence was substantial evidence.

Disposition

Judge Robert M. Illman granted Ahmad H.’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the administrative law judge must send questionnaires to Dr. Uzell and Veterans Affairs or subpoena the records supporting their opinions about Ahmad H.’s disability between February 22, 2008, and September 30, 2011. The administrative law judge must also hold a second hearing if new evidence of disability emerges from that inquiry.

Classification note

This order is classified as mixed because it both disposed of the reopening issue on a jurisdictional ground without reaching that issue’s merits and decided the merits of the record-development challenge by ordering a Social Security remand.