Heather J. S. v. Kijakazi

Background

Heather J. S. brought the case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which allows judicial review of a final Social Security decision. She had previously been found disabled and awarded disability insurance benefits based on diabetes, a back-pain disorder with a history of back injury, and asthma. The favorable decision found that she had been disabled since May 29, 2010, and noted that medical improvement was expected with appropriate treatment.

The Social Security Administration later conducted a continuing disability review, a periodic review of whether a person remains eligible for benefits. In 2017, the Commissioner found that Heather J. S.’s disability had ceased as of August 1, 2017, because her condition had improved and she could work. After reconsideration and a hearing, Administrative Law Judge David B. Washington upheld that result in an August 13, 2019 decision.

ALJ Washington found that medical improvement had occurred and that Heather J. S. had the residual functional capacity—the most she could do despite her limitations—to perform light work with limits on bending, stooping, crouching, handling, and fingering. He found that she could not perform her past relevant work but could work as a mail clerk. The Appeals Council denied review.

Arguments and analysis

Heather J. S. challenged only the finding that medical improvement had occurred. She argued that the administrative law judge did not support that finding with substantial evidence, meaning enough evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge’s discussion of her medical care and functional limitations adequately explained the finding.

The court held that the decision did not properly apply the medical-improvement standard. That standard requires comparing the claimant’s current condition with the condition at the time of the most recent favorable decision, and it requires the Commissioner to show that the impairments that previously caused disability had improved in a way related to the ability to work.

The court found no adequate discussion of improvement in the three impairments present at the earlier favorable decision: diabetes, the back-pain disorder with a history of back injury, and asthma. The administrative law judge stated that those impairments had decreased in medical severity but did not explain how or identify evidence supporting that conclusion. The decision also did not compare Heather J. S.’s condition in 2013 with her condition in 2017. The court noted that medical expert Dr. Andrew Steiner had testified that the record did not show improvement in asthma, diabetes, or degenerative disc disease, even though the administrative law judge relied heavily on his opinion.

Because the administrative law judge did not properly establish medical improvement at step three before analyzing whether the improvement affected Heather J. S.’s ability to work, the court could not determine whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court stated that it was not deciding the ultimate question of whether Heather J. S. had medically improved or remained entitled to benefits.

Disposition

Judge Tony N. Leung ordered:

- Heather J. S.’s motion for summary judgment was granted. - The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was denied. - The Commissioner’s decision was vacated as to steps three through eight. - The case was remanded to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.