“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A woman suffering from both physical and mental impairments challenged an agency decision to reject her application for disability benefits.
What happened in this case?
Brandy Calhoun applied for social security disability benefits, contending that her impairments left her unable to work. She claimed she was suffering from blood clots, migraines, numbness in her legs, high blood pressure, obesity, a severe anxiety disorder involving frequent panic attacks known as agoraphobia, and limited intellectual functioning. She testified that she can only sit for about ten minutes or stand for fifteen because of leg numbness, and a ramp had to be installed at the trailer where she lives with her parents because she is unable to climb the four stairs leading up to the entrance.
After she applied, she was examined and evaluated by a doctor selected by the agency, Dr. Joshua Broman-Fulks. He concluded that Calhoun, who was then 23, would not be “capable of performing any activities that required her to leave home on a regular basis.” Not satisfied with these results, the agency had two other doctors examine the medical records and they concluded that Calhoun’s impairments were “not at the level of severity” as determined by Dr, Broman-Fulks. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) accordingly determined that “substantial evidence” supported the rejection of her application, and a federal district court agreed. The case went to the Fourth Circuit.
In a 2-1 decision in September written by Trump Judge Julius Richardson in Calhoun v Commissioner of Social Security, the Fourth Circuit rejected Calhoun’s appeal and upheld the decision turning down her application. Richardson was joined by Obama judge Pamela Harris, but Judge Roger Gregory who was nominated both by Bill Clinton and George W Bush, dissented. The majority concluded that there was “substantial evidence” to support the ruling.
Why did Judge Gregory dissent?
After a careful review of the record, Judge Gregory found that the ALJ had made two serious errors that warranted reversal of the judgment. Initially, he wrote, the ALJ “lacked substantial evidence” to conclude that Calhoun did not meet the criteria for a severe anxiety disorder, especially in light of the significant evidence to the contrary. In addition, Gregory went on, the ALJ had failed to justify his conclusion that Calhoun was “capable of regular, sustained work.” Gregory was particularly critical that the ALJ’s conclusion disregarded the findings of “the government’s own expert that deemed Calhoun disabled.” Although the court’s standard of review is properly deferential to the agency, Gregory concluded, that “does not authorize us to look past fundamental errors” as in this case.
Why is this decision harmful?
Trump judge Richardson’s ruling obviously harms Brandy Calhoun by depriving her of disability benefits she should have received. It also sets bad precedent concerning the evaluation of claims for disability benefits, particularly in the Fourth Circuit, which includes Virginia, Maryland North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia. In addition, the ruling illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.