Facts

Frank Ho was diagnosed with schizophrenia, disorganized type, after a psychotic break in 2012 that resulted in a two-week stay at a psychiatric hospital and two additional weeks at a residential treatment facility. Before his diagnosis, between the early aughts and 2011, Ho worked in various roles at different employers, but he was unable to hold a job and was usually terminated for poor performance.

Based on his diagnosis, in a decision dated March 7, 2014, Ho was found disabled with an onset date of March 1, 2012, and he began to receive benefits. After a continuing disability review initiated by the Social Security Administration in 2018, however, Ho's benefits were discontinued on June 8, 2018. Reconsideration was denied, and Ho requested a hearing on the matter.

After several continuances, including one to allow Ho to obtain counsel, a hearing was set for February 28, 2020.
On February 24, 2020, the Homeless Action Center sent a postponement request on behalf of Ho to the Administrative Law Judge, informing the ALJ that it would be representing Ho, but it had not had time to assign an attorney to the case because he had just sought their counsel that day. The ALJ went ahead with the scheduled hearing on February 28, and Ho appeared without counsel.

On March 16, 2020, the ALJ issued a decision finding that F.H. was no longer disabled as of June 1, 2018. The Appeals Council denied ho's request for review on August 10, 2020. Ho subsequently filed a challenge to the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the ALJ erred by denying his request for a continuance after he had secured representation; that the denial of the continuance was a violation of his right to counsel and his right to due process; that the ALJ erred by relying on the opinion of a medical expert who had not examined him; that the ALJ found plaintiff's treating doctor unpersuasive without offering adequate reasons to support that conclusion; that the ALJ erred by not adequately considering the limiting effects of the symptoms associated with his impairments; and that the ALJ's conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant did not specifically address plaintiff's contentions, but instead moved to remand the matter for further proceedings.

Result

The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, but also granted the Commissioner's motion to remand.