Kitt v. Saul
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-06632
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 26
In Kitt v. Saul, Judge Liman ruled the disability date lacked evidentiary support, granted Kitt’s motion, and ordered further administrative proceedings.
Gail Kitt and the Social Security Administration, which must reconsider the onset date of Kitt’s disability while leaving her disability beginning January 12, 2016 undisturbed.
What happened
In Kitt v. Saul, Gail Kitt challenged the Social Security Administration’s finding that she became disabled on January 12, 2016, rather than on September 3, 2011. The Commissioner agreed that the January 12 date was unsupported but argued that more administrative proceedings were needed.
The court found that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated medical opinions and relied on selected parts of the record. The court also found that the record did not clearly establish an earlier disability date, so it declined to order benefits based solely on the existing record.
Judge Liman granted Kitt’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and sent the matter back for further proceedings. The Commissioner must obtain clarifying testimony from the medical expert about the disability onset date; the finding that Kitt was disabled beginning January 12, 2016, remains undisturbed.
The detailed version
- Kitt v. Saul · No. 1:19-cv-06632
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 22, 2021
Background
Gail Kitt sought Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The administrative law judge found that she was not disabled through December 31, 2013, her date last insured for disability insurance benefits, and became disabled on January 12, 2016, for purposes of Supplemental Security Income. Kitt argued that her disability began on September 3, 2011. The Commissioner agreed that the January 12, 2016 finding was not supported by substantial evidence, but argued that the court should remand for further proceedings rather than order benefits based on an earlier date.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the administrative law judge’s decision under the Social Security Act. It explained that a finding must be supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate support for the conclusion.
The court found that the administrative law judge improperly discounted the testimony of medical expert Dr. Charles Cooke and the opinions of several treating medical professionals, including N.P. Diaz, P.A. Louie, Dr. Bekhet, and Dr. Joshi. The administrative law judge did not provide adequate reasons for assigning those opinions little, some, or no weight. The court also found that the administrative law judge relied on limited portions of a much larger medical record and incorrectly characterized some evidence as showing normal gait, strength, and sensation.
The court further concluded that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain why January 12, 2016 was selected as the disability onset date. The record contained evidence of earlier pain, neuropathy, vision problems, gait problems, and other physical limitations. The vocational expert’s testimony also did not support the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Kitt could perform her prior work before January 12, 2016 under the limitations the record showed.
Disposition
The court granted Kitt’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. It determined that the administrative law judge’s January 12, 2016 onset-date finding was not supported by substantial evidence and that the matter should be remanded under Section 405(g) for further administrative proceedings rather than remanded solely for calculation of benefits.
The court declined to select an earlier onset date because Dr. Cooke’s testimony was ambiguous about when Kitt met the relevant disability requirements and when she became unable to work. The remand is limited to obtaining clarifying testimony from Dr. Cooke about his opinions and their basis. After that testimony, the Commissioner may determine the appropriate onset date based on the record as a whole. The finding that Kitt was disabled beginning January 12, 2016, remains undisturbed.
Read the full 26-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.