Clarke v. Saul

Background

Ivette Clarke brought this action under the Social Security Act seeking judicial review of the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income. The administrative law judge found that Clarke had six severe impairments, including major depressive disorder, anxiety, hidradenitis suppurativa, degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, and anemia, but concluded that she was not disabled. The administrative law judge determined that Clarke could perform limited light work and that jobs such as mail clerk, office helper, and photocopy operator were available in the national economy.

Clarke challenged that decision on two grounds. First, she argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated her hidradenitis suppurativa under Listing 8.06, which concerns extensive lesions involving specified areas and persisting for at least three months despite continuing treatment. Second, she argued that the administrative law judge failed to fully develop the record by obtaining medical records and asking how her skin condition affected her.

The medical record and administrative decision

The report described evidence of recurring and painful lesions affecting Clarke’s armpits, groin, areas beneath her breasts, and perineum. Medical records from 2015 through 2018 documented continuing treatment, including medications, referrals, surgery, and a hospitalization of more than two weeks after extensive lesions became infected. A nurse practitioner described the condition as Hurley stage III and opined that Clarke could not work for at least twelve months. The record also included evidence that Clarke experienced pain, had difficulty walking, used a cane at times, and needed help with daily activities.

The administrative law judge’s entire explanation for rejecting Listing 8.06 was that there was no evidence of extensive lesions involving both armpits, both groin areas, or the perineum that persisted for at least three months despite continuing prescribed treatment. The administrative law judge also considered Clarke’s activities, treatment history, medical opinions, and testimony in assessing her ability to work.

Court’s analysis

The report concluded that this explanation was inadequate and was not supported by substantial evidence, meaning sufficient relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept. The administrative law judge did not explain which part of Listing 8.06 Clarke failed to satisfy. The report found that the medical record contained substantial evidence of serious and recurring lesions in the areas identified by the listing, continuing treatment over more than three months, pain, and functional limitations.

The report also stated that the administrative law judge did not ask how often Clarke experienced outbreaks, how long the lesions lasted, how treatment affected her, how the condition limited her, or how she functioned when the condition was less active. The report explained that the administrative law judge could not simply rely on a conclusory statement when the medical evidence appeared to correspond to the listing. The court could not independently supply the missing analysis.

Recommendation and procedural status

The report recommended that Clarke’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted and that the Commissioner’s motion be denied. It further recommended vacating the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits and remanding the matter to the agency for further proceedings. On remand, the administrative law judge would need to assess whether Clarke met Listing 8.06 and, if reaffirming the prior conclusion, provide a clearer explanation.

Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge, issued the report and recommendation to United States District Judge Lorna G. Schofield. The report stated that the parties had fourteen days after service to file objections and did not state that Judge Schofield had adopted the recommendation.