Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California reviewed Plaintiff Pa Vang’s challenge to the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability benefits. The court held that the ALJ provided sufficient reasons for evaluating Vang’s subjective complaints and medical opinions, and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, entered judgment for the Commissioner, and closed the case.
Holdings
- Because the record contained no affirmative evidence of malingering and the ALJ found that Vang's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, the ALJ was required to provide clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence to discount her testimony. The ALJ satisfied that requirement by identifying inconsistencies and evidentiary shortcomings concerning her hearing loss, daily activities, mental-health treatment, suicidal ideation, and memory complaints.
- For claims governed by the revised regulations, an ALJ need not give special deference to treating or examining physicians or provide the former specific-and-legitimate-reasons explanation based solely on the source relationship. The ALJ's decision to discount a medical opinion must instead be supported by substantial evidence, including an explanation of the opinion's supportability and consistency.
Questions Presented
- Whether the ALJ provided legally sufficient, clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting Pa Vang's subjective symptom testimony.
- Whether the ALJ properly evaluated treating psychologist Mark Popper's medical-source opinions under the revised Social Security regulations.
- Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the prior administrative medical findings of the state-agency consultants under the revised Social Security regulations.
- Whether the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (17)
- Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401-02 (1971)(followed)
- Sorenson v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119 n.10 (9th Cir. 1975)(followed)
- Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 343 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc)(followed)
- Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403, 1407 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended (Apr. 9, 1996)(followed)
- Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 499 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
- Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 17.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…