Latest / FLG Disability Insights / When a Missing Hearing Transcript Undermines an SSDI Denial
Transcript
- What happens when a disability denial relies on hearing testimony, but the hearing itself is missing from the record? Welcome to FLG Disability Insights. I’m Nick Feden of Feden Law Group. That question drove the federal court’s decision in Ball versus Bisignano. The Social Security hearing lasted more than fifty minutes. But the administrative record contained only a five-page log filled with abbreviations, incomplete sentences, and ellipses. It was not certified as a true and complete transcript, and the recording appeared to have been lost. The court reversed the SSDI denial and sent the claim back for further proceedings. It did not award benefits. The key problem was that a reviewing court could not confidently evaluate testimony the administrative law judge had relied on. The court found that the incomplete record violated the hearing-record requirement in the Social Security regulations. It drew a narrower distinction under the federal judicial-review statute: because the partial transcript was included in the certified record, there was no separate violation on that ground. The defect was the inadequacy of what had actually been preserved. The court also rejected the Commissioner’s waiver or forfeiture argument in these circumstances, including the fact that counsel had flagged the missing recording. That does not mean every objection to an incomplete record can be raised at any time. Why was the gap harmful? The administrative law judge repeatedly relied on the missing testimony when evaluating social interaction. The decision allowed occasional interaction with supervisors and coworkers, and no public interaction. The court had serious doubts that substantial evidence supported those findings. It also stressed a practical difference: cooperating during treatment in a controlled clinical setting does not necessarily show that a person can sustain interaction with supervisors and coworkers through a workday. On remand, the Commissioner must produce a complete, certified transcript or offer a new hearing, then issue a new decision supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law. The court also directed consideration of a physician’s feet-elevation statement and the prior findings from state-agency psychologists. The practical takeaway is precise. Compare the denial’s reasoning with the actual record. If testimony is missing, connect the gap to a specific functional or vocational finding and explain why the omitted evidence could matter. Ball is a record-specific federal district court decision. It did not establish disability, require a marked social limitation, or create a nationwide rule guaranteeing remand. Visit FedenLawGroup dot com and try FLG Case Analyst Beta. Get a full report generated by an attorney-trained, cutting-edge AI model, then connect with our firm about your next step. This podcast provides general information only and is not legal advice. I’m Nick Feden. Thanks for listening to FLG Disability Insights.