Hairston v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-05600
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
In Hairston v. Commissioner, Judge Parker granted Hairston’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded for further proceedings.
Denise Hairston and J.T.S.H. were affected because the court sent the disability-benefits case back to the Commissioner for further proceedings and additional record development.
What happened
In Hairston v. Commissioner of Social Security, Denise Hairston sought review of a decision denying Supplemental Security Income benefits for J.T.S.H., a child with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other conditions. The Administrative Law Judge found that J.T.S.H. was not disabled under the Social Security Act.
The court found that the Administrative Law Judge did not adequately develop the record. He did not obtain updated treatment records, school records, or enough information about J.T.S.H.’s functioning, treatment, symptoms, and daily life. He also did not ask enough follow-up questions at the hearing, where Hairston was not represented by a lawyer. The court did not decide Hairston’s separate argument that the Administrative Law Judge improperly selected evidence supporting the denial.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted Hairston’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The court directed the Commissioner to obtain additional treatment and school records and to conduct additional questioning.
The detailed version
- Hairston v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-05600
- Katharine Parker
- Mar. 9, 2022
Background
Denise Hairston brought the case under the Social Security Act to challenge the Commissioner’s decision that J.T.S.H. was not disabled from January 1, 2009, through May 8, 2019. J.T.S.H. was born in June 2007 and was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and a learning disorder. The opinion also discusses asthma and knee pain, but Hairston did not challenge the findings concerning those conditions.
Hairston applied for child Supplemental Security Income benefits on J.T.S.H.’s behalf in March 2017. After the application was denied, an administrative hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Mark Solomon in April 2019. Hairston and J.T.S.H. testified. At that time, Hairston was not represented by counsel. The Administrative Law Judge later found that J.T.S.H. had severe impairments but did not meet, medically equal, or functionally equal a listed impairment. He found less-than-marked limitations in acquiring and using information and attending and completing tasks, and no limitations in several other functional areas.
The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. Hairston argued that the Administrative Law Judge failed to obtain recent treatment and educational records, failed to ask sufficient questions at the hearing, and improperly selected evidence supporting the decision.
Record-development duty
The court explained that an Administrative Law Judge has an affirmative duty to develop the record because Social Security proceedings are generally non-adversarial. That duty is heightened when a claimant is not represented by counsel and alleges mental impairments. The judge must obtain additional information when the evidence is not complete enough to decide the claim.
The court found two significant gaps. First, the Administrative Law Judge did not obtain updated records from J.T.S.H.’s treating providers at YAI, including Dr. Hadley and a counselor identified in the record as Maria or Jodi. The last YAI records were from July 2017, even though the hearing occurred in April 2019 and the record indicated that J.T.S.H. continued receiving treatment. The court also found that updated school records, including individualized education program records, were needed.
The court stated that a one-time consultative examination did not replace longitudinal treatment records showing how J.T.S.H.’s functioning changed over time. Without the missing treatment and school information, the Administrative Law Judge could not properly assess whether J.T.S.H.’s functioning had improved, worsened, or remained the same.
Hearing questioning
Second, the court found that the Administrative Law Judge did not sufficiently question Hairston and J.T.S.H. about the child’s symptoms and functioning. For example, the judge did not adequately explore J.T.S.H.’s failure of three classes, his need for reminders and redirection for daily activities, his counseling, the frequency and length of treatment, his current symptoms, the behaviors underlying the autism diagnosis, or the effects of his impairments at home, school, and in the community.
The court concluded that this lack of questioning prevented a proper evaluation of the six childhood functional domains, including acquiring and using information, attending and completing tasks, interacting and relating with others, and caring for oneself. It also found that the error was not harmless because the missing information could affect the assessment of J.T.S.H.’s overall functioning and the combined effects of his impairments.
Disposition
The court held that remand was required for further development of the record. Because of that ruling, it did not reach Hairston’s argument that the Administrative Law Judge had improperly selected evidence to support the denial.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Defendant’s cross-motion. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The court directed the Commissioner to obtain additional treatment records, conduct additional questioning, and obtain updated school records, such as an individualized education program.
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.