Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the district court's affirmance of the Commissioner's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ failed to reconcile an apparent conflict between his residual functional capacity (RFC) and the reasoning requirements of the jobs identified by the ALJ. The ALJ found that plaintiff retains the RFC to perform simple, routine, or repetitive tasks and that plaintiff was not disabled because he is still able to perform two occupations: cashier and surveillance system monitor. These occupations require the ability to perform Level 3 Reasoning on the Department of Labor's General Education Development scale. The court agreed with plaintiff's argument and held that there is an apparent conflict between plaintiff's limitation to simple, routine, or repetitive tasks and the demands of Level 3 Reasoning. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings because the ALJ failed to reconcile this apparent conflict. View "Zavalin v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for social security disability benefits. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports neither the ALJ's rejection of plaintiff's testimony nor his rejection of the medical assessment by plaintiff's treating physician. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's affirmance of the denial of benefits. However, because the court has "serious doubt" as to whether plaintiff is, in fact, disabled under Garrison v. Colvin, the district court shall remand the case to the ALJ for further proceedings on an open record. On remand, the court did not require the ALJ to require as true plaintiff's testimony, the treating physician's assessment, or any other evidence. View "Burrell v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's judgment, affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part, the Commissioner's denial of his application for social security disability insurance. The court concluded that the ALJ erred in failing to provide specific reasons for rejecting plaintiff's testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms and, therefore, reversed the judgment of the district court affirming that portion of the ALJ's decision. The court also concluded that the record does not compel a finding of disability and, therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of social security benefits on the basis that she was not intellectually disabled. Plaintiff had received social security benefits because of her intellectual disability but the SSA concluded that she no longer qualified as disabled once she reached the age of 18. The court concluded that the ALJ had a duty to order further IQ testing and the ALJ's failure to do so was not harmless error. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.View "Garcia v. Comm's of Soc. Sec." on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, C.M's parents challenged the district court's decision affirming the OAH judge's conclusion that the District did not violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400-1487. The parents argued that the District violated the procedural requirements of the IDEA because it failed to properly incorporate C.M's Response-to-Intervention (RTI) data into C.M.'s initial evaluation and it failed to provide them with C.M.'s RTI data. The court concluded that the District did not fail to incorporate the RTI data into the evaluation, but that it violated the IDEA's procedural requirements by failing to provide the parents with the RTI data; the District's procedural violations prevented the parents from meaningfully participating in the individualized education program (IEP) process; and the court remanded for reconsideration of whether the parents were entitled to reimbursement for the cost of private instruction because C.M. was denied a free appropriate public education, and for attorneys' fees. The parents also contested three of the district court's rulings related to the first two OAH proceedings. The court concluded that the district court properly concluded that the parents' claim for reimbursement of the cost of Dr. Guterman's evaluation was moot; properly concluded that the parents' due process rights were not violated by a change in the wording of the issue presented; and correctly determined that two of the three claims raised in the second OAH proceeding were time-barred. Finally, the court remanded for consideration of the parents' reevaluation retaliation claim and affirmed as to the remaining claims.View "M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court concluded that the ALJ improperly discounted the opinions of plaintiff's treating providers as to the severity of plaintiff's condition and his ability to work because the record revealed occasional indicia of improvement, a minimal capacity to perform basic chores, and some reliance by treating providers on plaintiff's self-reports. This was not an adequate evidentiary basis to reject the opinions of a treating physician or other treating providers. Even if plaintiff's expressed desire to receive disability benefits casts some doubt on the veracity of his testimony, standing alone, this scintilla of evidence cannot support an adverse credibility determination. Consequently, the ALJ's errors affected the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment and his determination that plaintiff was unable to perform past relevant work as a kitchen helper and a commercial cleaner. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.View "Ghanim v. Astrue" on Justia Law

E.M., who has an auditory processing disorder or a central auditory processing disorder, through his parents, filed suit against the district alleging that E.M. had been denied a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to show that the district acted unreasonably in determining in 2005 that E.M. did not qualify for special education services under the "specific learning disability" category; the Department of Education's position that a central auditory processing disorder is eligible for consideration for benefits under the "other health impairment" category merits deference; but plaintiffs failed to show that the district acted unreasonably in not considering E.M. for benefits under the "other health impairment" category in 2005. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of relief to plaintiffs. View "E.M. v. Pajaro Valley U.S.D." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of Social Security benefits. The court concluded that the ALJ erred in rejecting medical opinions, that she misunderstood a state examiner's opinion of plaintiff's impairments, and that she failed to meet the requirement of offering specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discrediting plaintiff's symptom testimony. The court reversed the district court's decision to remand the case to the ALJ for further proceedings and, instead, remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the ALJ for a calculation and award of appropriate benefits. Plaintiff unquestionably satisfies all three conditions of the credit-as-true rule and a careful review of the record disclosed no reason to seriously doubt that she is, in fact, disabled. View "Garrison v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Arc challenged state officials' implementation of three new policies relating to state funding of home- and community-based services to developmentally disabled persons. California has reduced its funding for this program, as it has for other Medicaid-funded programs, 42 U.S.C. 1396-1396w-5, at various times. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Arc's motion for a preliminary injunction because it misconstrued the Medicaid Act and applied deference to a federal agency decision where none was due; the court asserted pendant appellate jurisdiction over the dismissal of Arc's Medicaid Act claims, which relied on exactly the same reasoning, and reversed; the court could not go beyond correcting the district court's statutory interpretation to determining the propriety of preliminary injunctive relief; the primary state statute Arc challenges expired while the case was on appeal and, therefore, that challenge is moot; while the two other challenged statutes - the uniform holiday schedule and half-day billing rule - remain in effect, their impact was not the focus of the preliminary injunction proceeding and, therefore, the court remanded to allow augmentation of the record and reconsideration of the propriety of injunctive relief in the changed circumstances, applying the correct irreparable harm analysis. View "The Arc of California v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order denying his motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412. The court concluded that the underlying agency action lacked a reasonable basis in law because the Social Security ALJ disregarded competent lay witness evidence on plaintiff's symptoms without comment. The court concluded that, because the ALJ disregarded competent lay witness evidence without comment, the position of the United States in the underlying action was not substantially justified. Because the government's underlying position was not substantially justified, the court awarded fees, even if the government's litigation position may have been justified. Therefore, plaintiff was entitled to an award of attorney's fees. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Tobeler v. Colvin" on Justia Law