Hahn v. Kijakazi

Background

Hahn applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning January 15, 2019. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Amy Rosenberg found that Hahn was not disabled from January 15, 2019, through the date of the decision.

The administrative law judge found several severe impairments, including Raynaud’s disease or systemic sclerosis, migraine or tension headaches, a seizure disorder, somatoform disorder, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and insomnia. The judge determined that Hahn could perform medium work with restrictions, could not perform her past relevant work, but could perform jobs such as housekeeper, cleaner, and stock clerk that existed in significant numbers nationally. The Appeals Council denied review.

Hahn sought judicial review and moved for summary judgment. The Commissioner opposed Hahn’s motion and cross-moved for summary judgment affirming the denial.

Medical opinion

The court found that the administrative law judge failed to address psychologist D. Thigpen’s opinion that Hahn had a moderate limitation in maintaining attendance and completing a normal workday or workweek. The judge had found Dr. Thigpen’s opinion persuasive and had translated most of its limitations into work restrictions, but did not address this particular limitation.

The omission was not harmless because the vocational expert testified that a typical competitive employer would tolerate about two absences per month. Depending on what “moderate” meant in this context, the limitation could potentially prevent competitive employment. The court directed the administrative law judge on remand to develop the record concerning the meaning of “moderate” and consider that limitation in determining disability.

Hahn’s symptom testimony

The court also held that the administrative law judge did not give adequate reasons for rejecting Hahn’s testimony about the severity of her migraines and the absences they allegedly caused. The administrative law judge stated generally that Hahn’s symptom statements were inconsistent with the objective and other evidence, but did not specifically identify which testimony was rejected and why.

The court also found that the administrative law judge did not explain the significance of reported improvement with medication or why relief from medication was inconsistent with Hahn’s migraine testimony. The court therefore required the administrative law judge to reconsider Hahn’s migraine testimony and, if appropriate, the residual functional capacity assessment.

Lay witness statements

Hahn’s mother and friends submitted statements about Hahn’s symptoms and limitations. The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s rule that an administrative law judge must give reasons specific to each witness—reasons that are relevant to that witness—when rejecting lay testimony. The court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that later Social Security regulations eliminated this requirement.

Because the administrative law judge gave no reasons for rejecting the third-party statements, and because the Commissioner could not rely on reasons that the judge had not stated, the court found another error. The court rejected the argument that this error was harmless.

Ruling and remedy

The court granted Hahn’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. It remanded the case for further proceedings rather than ordering an immediate award of benefits. The court explained that, even if the disputed issues were resolved in Hahn’s favor, it was not clear that the administrative law judge would be required to find her disabled. The clerk was directed to enter judgment consistent with the order and close the file.