Chelsea I. B. v. Saul
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-02874
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Chelsea I. B. v. Saul, Judge Tostrud remanded the disability-benefits case after finding the vocational expert’s job testimony lacked adequate support.
Chelsea I. B.’s disability-benefits claim and the Commissioner’s administrative decision are affected; the case returns to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.
What happened
Chelsea I. B. sued Andrew Saul, the Commissioner of Social Security, over the denial of her application for disability benefits. Both sides asked for summary judgment, and a magistrate judge recommended sending the case back for further administrative proceedings.
The court agreed that the Administrative Law Judge did not fully develop the record about Chelsea I. B.’s repeated hospitalizations and partial hospitalizations. Because the vocational expert testified that regular absences could prevent most employment, the judge’s hypothetical did not contain enough information to support the finding that Chelsea I. B. could work as a packager, laundry presser, or laundry worker.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud overruled the Commissioner’s objections and accepted the recommendation. The court granted Chelsea I. B.’s summary-judgment motion in part and denied it in part, denied the Commissioner’s motion, remanded the case for further administrative proceedings, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Chelsea I. B. v. Saul · No. 0:18-cv-02874
- Eric Tostrud
- Mar. 13, 2020
Background
Chelsea I. B. brought this action seeking Social Security disability benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Chelsea I. B.’s motion be granted in part, that the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings, and that the Commissioner’s motion be denied.
The Commissioner objected to part of the recommendation. Judge Tostrud reviewed the challenged portion of the recommendation independently and accepted it.
Reasoning
At the fifth step of the disability analysis, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Chelsea I. B. could perform work as a packager, laundry presser, or laundry worker. That finding relied exclusively on testimony from a vocational expert.
The ALJ asked the vocational expert about a person with limitations involving simple, routine, repetitive tasks and limited contact with other people. The expert testified that such a person could perform the identified jobs. The expert also testified that regularly missing 20 percent of a workday would likely cost a person their job and that missing one day of work each month on a repeated basis would prevent most employment.
The court concluded that the ALJ did not address whether Chelsea I. B. could meet those attendance requirements. The ALJ also did not decide that the vocational expert’s attendance testimony was erroneous, unsupported, or unreliable. The court explained that the record needed further development concerning Chelsea I. B.’s repeated hospitalizations and partial hospitalizations, including the effect those events might have on her ability to attend work on a regular and continuing basis.
Because the ALJ’s hypothetical did not include information about those hospitalizations and partial hospitalizations, the vocational expert’s testimony based on that hypothetical could not provide substantial evidence supporting the finding of no disability. The court therefore concluded that the ALJ’s determination that Chelsea I. B. could perform the identified jobs was not supported by substantial evidence.
Disposition
The court overruled the Commissioner’s objections and accepted the Report and Recommendation. It granted Chelsea I. B.’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, remanded the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.