Ford v. Saul, No. 18-35794 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision upholding the SSA's denial of the claimant's application for disability benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The panel held that the ALJ properly provided specific and legitimate reasons for discounting the opinions of claimant's physicians, correctly concluded that claimant's impairments did not meet a listing, and was entitled to rely on the vocational expert's testimony despite the expert's failure to provide information about the sources underlying the testimony.
Court Description: Social Security. The panel affirmed the district court’s decision affirming the Social Security Administration’s denial of a claimant’s application for disability benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The panel first considered the claimant’s claim that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in rejecting the opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Medani. The panel concluded that the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion. First, there was a conflict between the treating physician’s medical opinion and his own notes. Second, there was a conflict between the treating physician’s opinion and the claimant’s activity level. Finally, Dr. Medani’s opinion lacked explanation. The panel rejected claimant’s challenge to the ALJ’s rejection of the opinion of Dr. Zipperman, an examining physician. The panel concluded that the ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion, and the reasons were supported by substantial evidence. First, Dr. Zipperman’s opinion regarding claimant’s functioning was inconsistent with objective evidence in claimant’s record. Second, Dr. Zipperman’s opinion was inconsistent with claimant’s performance at work. Finally, the ALJ reasonably determined that Dr. Zipperman did not provide useful statements regarding the degree of claimant’s limitations. The FORD V. SAUL 3 panel also held that the ALJ’s duty to develop the record was not triggered where the ALJ had years of claimant’s health records and multiple medical opinions to inform the ALJ’s decision. The panel next considered claimant’s argument that the record supported her claim that she met impairment Listings 1.02 and 1.03, which involve impairments that result in an inability to ambulate effectively. The panel held that the ALJ did not err in giving no weight to Dr. Medani’s opinions, which concluded that claimant’s condition met the criteria of the listings; and therefore, those opinions did not undercut the ALJ’s ruling that claimant did not meet Listings 1.02 and 1.03. Second, the panel held that although the ALJ made a factual error in evaluating claimant’s ability to walk, the error was harmless because there was ample evidence in the record supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that claimant did not meet the Listings. Finally, the ALJ did not err by failing to consider whether a combination of her impairments medically equaled the criteria of Listings 1.02 or 1.03. Finally, the panel rejected claimant’s argument that the ALJ erred in failing to order the vocational expert to identify or provide his source material for his testimony on the number of jobs that existed in the national economy that claimant could perform. First, the ALJ’s decision not to issue a subpoena to the vocational expert to produce the underlying data did not violate the applicable regulations. Second, the vocational expert’s failure to produce the data underlying her testimony did not undermine its reliability. The panel held that the expert’s testimony cleared the low substantial evidence bar. Given its inherent reliability, the qualified vocational expert’s testimony as to the number of jobs existing in the national economy that a claimant can perform 4 FORD V. SAUL was ordinarily sufficient by itself to support the ALJ’s finding at step five of the sequential evaluation process. The panel affirmed the ALJ’s conclusion at step five that claimant could perform a significant number of other jobs in the national economy, and therefore, she was not disabled.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.