MOUA v. SAUL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-05No. No. 19-15047

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order upholding the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits, finding that substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge's determination of Moua's residual functional capacity.

Cha Thao Moua sought Social Security disability benefits but was denied by the Commissioner. The district court affirmed that denial, and Moua appealed. The appellate court reviewed the case independently to determine whether the Commissioner's decision was legally sound and backed by substantial evidence in the record.

The court found that the Administrative Law Judge properly evaluated Moua's physical limitations despite medical evidence of back, hip, and shoulder injuries. The judge reasonably discounted certain medical opinions because of concerns about the reliability of the examination process and the absence of strong supporting evidence for more restrictive limitations. The judge was not required to adopt any single medical opinion wholesale, as the capacity determination is an administrative rather than strictly medical function. Similarly, any potential shortcomings in the judge's analysis of mental health conditions were deemed harmless because the judge ultimately recognized the serious nature of Moua's affective disorder and accepted key clinical diagnoses.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination of physical residual functional capacity
Whether the ALJ properly weighed conflicting medical opinions from treating, examining, and state physicians
Whether any error in analyzing mental health conditions was harmless

Procedural posture

Moua appealed the district court's affirmance of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her disability benefits claim.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Cha Thao Moua appeals the district courts order affirming the Commissioner of Social Securitys denial of disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

“We review the district courts decision de novo and therefore must independently determine whether the Commissioners decision (1) is free of legal error and (2) is supported by substantial evidence.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ” Id. (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971)).

1. Substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judges (“ALJ”) determination of Mouas physical residual functional capacity. Contrary to Mouas argument, the ALJ considered all the medical evidence as to Mouas physical limitations and provided specific and legitimate reasons to support his analysis. As the ALJ explained, while there was evidence that Moua had back, hip, and shoulder sprains or strains, little evidence supported the significant limitations treating physician Dr. Yang imposed. And because examining physician Dr. Rioss opinion was undermined by Mouas suboptimal effort during two key aspects of the exam, the ALJ gave his report little weight. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[W]e must uphold the ALJs findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.”). The ALJ “set[ ] out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stat[ed] [his] interpretation thereof, and ma[de] findings” as required. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998)).

The ALJ did not impose his own lay medical opinion. He was not required to reiterate the conclusions of any single medical opinion or adopt any opinion in full. Rather, the residual functional capacity determination is an administrative, not a medical, finding. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJs determination that Moua could perform medium work is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

2. Substantial evidence supports the ALJs determination of Mouas mental residual functional capacity. Even assuming the ALJ erred by failing to specifically analyze the treating psychiatrists notes and giving more weight to the opinion of non-examining state agency doctors without adequate explanation, see Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012, the error was inconsequential because the ALJ found that Mouas “affective disorder” was a severe impairment, in keeping with the treating psychiatrists major depression diagnosis. Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020) (“We may affirm the ALJs decision even if the ALJ made an error, so long as the error was harmless, meaning it was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.” (quotation omitted)). The same is true of any error the ALJ may have made in purportedly giving the opinion of one examining psychiatrist, Dr. Zhang, little weight, because the ALJ ultimately accepted Dr. Zhangs diagnoses.

AFFIRMED.

I respectfully dissent. Substantial evidence does not support the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) determination that Moua could perform medium work, including occasionally lifting up to 50 pounds. The state physicians provided the only medical opinions that supported this medium-work finding, as the treating and examining physicians found that Moua could lift no more than 10 or 20 pounds. But the ALJ did not provide specific and legitimate reasons for preferring the state physicians’ opinions to the treating and examining physicians’ opinions. Indeed, the ALJ expressly gave “[l]ittle weight” to the state physicians’ opinions because later evidence showed impairments that the state physicians had not identified. After the ALJs discounting of the state physicians’ opinions, there is insufficient remaining evidence to support a medium-work RFC finding, and no legitimate and specific reasons for rejecting the opinions of the treating and examining physicians.

Therefore, I would reverse and remand.