In Rubin v. O'Malley, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the denial of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits to Michelle Rubin and ordered the case remanded for further proceedings. The court found that the administrative law judge (ALJ) had improperly evaluated medical and lay evidence and failed to support her conclusion that Rubin did not meet the criteria of Listing 12.04 for depressive disorders.
Rubin filed for SSDI benefits in August 2019, alleging disability beginning in February 2018 due to major depressive disorder. Her claim was denied after a hearing, and both the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the denial.
On appeal, Rubin challenged the ALJ’s analysis at step three of the five-step evaluation process, particularly the finding that she did not meet the requirements of Listing 12.04. This listing applies to depressive and related mental disorders and requires documentation of symptoms and limitations in certain functional areas.
Rubin received psychiatric treatment at the Karen Horney Clinic from 2014 through 2021, with regular therapy and medication management. Her psychiatrist, Dr. Henry Paul, submitted a mental medical findings summary and additional opinion letters concluding that Rubin met both paragraph B and C criteria of Listing 12.04. He identified marked limitations in concentration, persistence, and ability to adapt or manage herself, along with marginal adjustment despite ongoing treatment.
Rubin's testimony and supporting statements from family and friends described severe impairments in daily functioning, including prolonged crying, isolation, difficulty with basic tasks, and overwhelming stress in response to minor changes. Treatment records corroborated these issues with frequent notations of emotional distress, suicidal ideation, and inability to manage daily activities.
The ALJ acknowledged Rubin’s severe depression but concluded she did not meet the listing criteria. The judge found only mild or moderate limitations in key functional areas, relying on Rubin’s ability to attend therapy, manage basic tasks intermittently, and engage in a brief clothing business that later failed.
The Second Circuit found that the ALJ mischaracterized or ignored substantial evidence. The court emphasized that:
The ALJ cherry-picked short-term successes and disregarded the broader context of Rubin’s deteriorating mental health.
Dr. Paul’s role as Rubin’s psychiatrist and access to comprehensive treatment records gave weight to his medical opinion.
The ALJ failed to provide sufficient analysis regarding Rubin’s minimal capacity to adapt to changes, a central requirement of paragraph C.
The ALJ gave no rationale for dismissing one of the two paragraph C requirements and provided inadequate reasoning for rejecting Dr. Paul’s conclusions.
The court held that these failures meant the ALJ’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
While the court declined to rule that Rubin was disabled as a matter of law, it found that a new hearing was necessary to properly evaluate the evidence and conduct further development of the record. The judgment of the district court was vacated, and the case was remanded with instructions to return the matter to the Commissioner for proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.
Our team at Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC works with individuals navigating Social Security Disability appeals. We help claimants understand procedural requirements, respond to ALJ determinations, and pursue further review when appropriate.