Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yer M. sought judicial review after the Social Security Administration denied disability benefits. She challenged the administrative law judge’s evaluation of her impairments, her testimony about memory loss and other symptoms, and the vocational findings used to conclude that work remained available.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Yer M.’s motion and denied the Commissioner’s motion. It held that the administrative law judge failed to give clear and convincing reasons for discounting her testimony and committed errors earlier in the sequential disability analysis.
The court remanded for a new hearing and proper development of the record. If the agency again reaches the final vocational step, it must obtain new vocational-expert testimony.
Key Takeaways
- Claimant symptom testimony may be rejected only with legally sufficient, evidence-based reasons.
- Selective reliance on isolated recollections did not justify discounting asserted memory problems.
- Errors at early sequential steps can undermine later vocational findings.
- The remedy was a new hearing, not immediate benefits.
Why It Matters
The decision cautions adjudicators against treating isolated moments of recall as proof that broader cognitive complaints are not credible. Counsel should connect early-step errors to the residual-capacity and job-number findings they infect.