Milliken v. Saul

Background

Kristen Marissa Milliken applied for disability insurance benefits based largely on longstanding spinal impairments, pain, and related medical conditions. The Administrative Law Judge initially found her disabled from April 7, 2014, through November 7, 2016. After a prior related proceeding and another administrative hearing, the Administrative Law Judge found her disabled from November 8, 2016, through April 22, 2019, but decided that her disability ended on April 23, 2019, because her condition had medically improved.

For the period beginning April 23, 2019, the Administrative Law Judge found that Milliken could perform sedentary work without the earlier restriction limiting her to three workdays per week. Based on testimony from a vocational expert, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that she could perform work as an envelope addresser, telephone order clerk, or charge account clerk.

The parties’ positions

Milliken asked the court to reverse the finding that her disability had ended and remand the case only for calculation of benefits. The Commissioner agreed that the medical-improvement decision should be reversed but argued that the case should instead be sent back for further administrative proceedings, including obtaining additional medical evidence, reevaluating medical opinions, and reassessing Milliken’s residual functional capacity—the work activities she could still perform.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that when the agency has already found a claimant disabled, disability is presumed to continue. In a medical-improvement case, the Commissioner bears the burden of proving that the claimant’s medical condition became less severe and that the improvement resulted in an ability to work. The court stated that the Commissioner may not rely only on evidence suggesting that the claimant is currently able to work without showing a supported decrease in medical severity.

The court concluded that the Commissioner had conceded that no medical opinion supported the Administrative Law Judge’s finding of medical improvement. Instead, the finding rested on the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of raw clinical findings. The court also rejected the Commissioner’s argument that further proceedings were needed to develop evidence, reasoning that the agency had already had an opportunity to obtain additional medical evidence after the earlier remand.

The court further considered the case’s age and procedural history. Milliken had filed her benefits application in October 2014, participated in two administrative hearings, and pursued two appeals to federal district court. The court determined that another remand for fact-finding would cause additional delay and was not appropriate.

Disposition

The court granted Milliken’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the case to the agency for calculation of benefits. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions and close the case.