In this social security disability claim, the claimant had presented her claim for disability to the Oklahoma City SSA Administrative Law Judge. The claimant presented evidence and witnesses as to her medical conditions, her inability to care for her personal and daily needs and her inability to work. Nonetheless the SSA Judge denied the claim.
The SSA Judge ruled, among other things, that there was a document showing that the claimant's doctor would not submit a medical report. So, according to the SSA Judge, this document showed that the claimant was not disabled. The SSA Judge also found that since the claimant took a trip out of state she was not disabled. The SSA Judge also found that since the witness for the claimant considered the claimant as his "surrogate mother" that witness testimony was to be discarded.
The claimant did not take this denial this laying down and rightfully appealed this SSA Judge's decision to federal court.
On federal appeal we argued that the SSA Judge's decision was not supported in law or in fact.
We argued that the document that the SSA Judge said showed that the claimant's doctor would not submit a medical report, did not actually exist. No such document could be found in the record anywhere. We argued that the absence of evidence is not evidence to be used against the claimant.
We argued that a trip out of state was not evidence of nondisability as claimed by the SSA Judge. We showed that the SSA Judge made no findings as to the difficulties the claimant had on this trip. We also argued that the SSA Judge's implication that the claimant drove the trip was in error. There was substantial evidence that the claimant was prohibited from driving and no longer was capable of driving due to her disabilities.
We argued that the SSA Judge's rejection of the witness for the claimant was also wrong. We argued that the SSA Judge's rejection of the witness simply because of the witness's close daily relationship to the claimant was reversible error and not made with good cause.
The Federal Court not only agreed with our argument on appeal, but went even further on the record to expressly rule that the decision of the SSA Judge showed "inappropriate and prejudicial bias by the ALJ" toward the claimant.
The Federal Court found that the SSA Judge "impermissibly made conclusions in the guise findings" in denying disability benefits to the claimant. The Federal Court found "nothing inconsistent" about a one time trip and a claim of disability. The Federal Court found that a missing document cannot be used by the SSA Judge as evidence of nondisability. And the Federal Court found that the close relationship between the claimant and her witness was not reason enough for the SSA Judge to reject that witness testimony.
Based on the arguments made, the Federal Court recommended that this claim be sent back to the SSA for another hearing and further ordered that this SSA Judge "avoid making unsupported conclusion in the guise of findings" to disqualify claimants.
