Albert B. v. Kijakazi

Background

Albert B. appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II and supplemental security income under Title XVI. He alleged disability beginning December 31, 2009. An earlier decision found him disabled beginning June 11, 2018, and a prior remand ordered a new decision for the period before that date.

After the remand, Administrative Law Judge David LaBarre found that Albert B. had several severe impairments, including degenerative disc disease, a right shoulder impairment, major depressive disorder, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, borderline and antisocial personality disorders, and alcohol use disorder. The judge found that Albert B. could perform light work with restrictions, but also found that he would be absent once a month and off task 30 percent of an eight-hour workday. Those limitations would prevent all work. The judge nevertheless concluded that Albert B.’s substance use was material to his disability because, without substance use, he would not have those two limitations. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the judge concluded that Albert B. was not disabled.

Court’s analysis

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Albert B. raised six challenges to Judge LaBarre’s decision. The Commissioner did not directly respond to those challenges and conceded that the administrative law judge had incorrectly evaluated the opinion of Dr. Richard Cicinelli. The parties primarily disputed whether the case should be sent back for more administrative proceedings or whether benefits should be awarded.

The court focused on the finding that drug and alcohol addiction was material to the disability determination. Under the Social Security Act and related regulations, a person cannot be found disabled if alcoholism or drug addiction is a contributing factor material to the disability determination. Social Security Ruling 13-2p requires an administrative law judge to explain the reasoning for finding substance use material, particularly when mental impairments occur alongside substance use.

The court identified two errors in the materiality analysis. First, the administrative law judge did not explain why Albert B.’s absences and time off task resulted from substance use rather than his co-occurring mental impairments. Second, the judge improperly treated improvement during structured treatment and periods of abstinence as proof that substance use caused the disabling limitations. The court noted that the ruling governing these determinations warns that improvement during structured treatment may result from treatment for a mental disorder, rather than from stopping substance use. The court also noted evidence that Albert B. had severe mental-health problems during incarceration and that two treating physicians found his limitations continued during periods when he was not abusing alcohol.

The court further concluded that the administrative law judge improperly rejected the opinions of eight medical sources who stated, in various ways, that substance use was not material to Albert B.’s disability. The court held that the administrative law judge substituted a personal interpretation of the medical evidence for the opinions of medical professionals and did not provide the required clear and convincing reasons for rejecting those opinions. The court also found that reliance on notes from one treating psychologist did not adequately address the contrary medical evidence.

Remedy and disposition

The court applied the credit-as-true rule, which can require an award of benefits when the record is complete, the administrative law judge gave legally insufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, and crediting that evidence would require a finding of disability without serious doubt. The court found all three conditions satisfied. The record contained more than 5,000 pages, the administrative law judge had already found Albert B. disabled when substance use was considered, and substantial evidence showed that substance use was not material. The court therefore found that additional proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

Judge Edward J. Davila granted Albert B.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded for an immediate calculation and award of benefits.