Joel W. v. Saul

Background

Joel W. appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. He alleged that he had been disabled since November 11, 2016. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that he had the severe impairment of vestibular Ménière’s disease, a disorder involving attacks of vertigo, tinnitus, and changing hearing loss.

The ALJ decided that Joel W.’s impairment did not meet or medically equal Listing 2.07. That listing concerns disturbance of labyrinthine-vestibular function, including Ménière’s disease, with a history of frequent balance problems, tinnitus, and progressive hearing loss, plus specified vestibular testing and audiometry. The ALJ found that the evidence did not establish progressive hearing loss. The ALJ then found that Joel W. retained the residual functional capacity to work with restrictions in jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

A magistrate judge, Elizabeth Cowan Wright, recommended denying Joel W.’s motion for summary judgment and granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. Joel W. objected to that recommendation.

Arguments and Analysis

Joel W. argued that the record showed at least mild hearing loss and therefore supported a finding that his impairment medically equaled Listing 2.07. He also argued that the ALJ should have obtained a medical expert’s opinion before deciding whether his impairment medically equaled the listing. The Commissioner argued that the ALJ’s decision was legally sound and supported by substantial evidence.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud held that Listing 2.07 requires both hearing loss established by audiometry and progressive hearing loss. The court reasoned that the listing’s introductory paragraph describes the symptoms required, while its additional paragraphs describe testing that must support those symptoms. The court also stated that ignoring the word “progressive” would make that requirement meaningless and would conflict with the regulation requiring claimants to satisfy all applicable listing criteria.

The court next held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Joel W. had not shown progressive hearing loss. Although some hearing tests showed right-ear conduction thresholds that Joel W. characterized as mild hearing loss, his treating physician described his hearing as normal, very close to normal, basically normal, or as good as it had been previously. The court concluded that the ALJ could reasonably determine from this evidence, including earlier test results, that the hearing loss was not becoming more severe.

The court also found no clear error in the conclusion that the ALJ did not need to obtain an updated medical expert opinion. The applicable Social Security ruling allows adjudicators to seek medical-expert evidence but does not require it when the evidence does not reasonably support medical equivalence to a listing. The court concluded that the 2018 test results did not differ significantly from earlier results.

Disposition

The court overruled Joel W.’s objections, accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied Joel W.’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.