BRIAN GLANDEN V. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, No. 22-35632 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff first applied for disability insurance benefits on September 3, 2019, alleging a disability onset date of December 1, 2017. His date last insured for the purpose of benefits eligibility was June 30, 2018. The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied his application initially and on reconsideration, and he requested an administrative hearing. After the December 14, 2020, hearing, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. The Social Security Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. Plaintiff then sought review in the district court, and the district court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed.
The Ninth Circuit reversed. The panel explained that at step two of the sequential analysis, claimants need only make a de minimis showing for the ALJ’s analysis to proceed past this step and that properly denying a claim at step two requires an unambiguous record showing only minimal limitations. The seven-month period for which Plaintiff seeks disability benefits falls within a two-and-a-half-year gap in his medical treatment records. The panel held that Plaintiff made the requisite showing to meet step two’s low bar, where he submitted evidence that he suffered from multiple chronic medical conditions that both preceded and succeeded the gap in his treatment. The panel concluded that this cumulative evidence was enough to establish that Plaintiff’s claim was nonfrivolous and to require the ALJ to proceed to step three. Therefore, the ALJ’s denial of Plaintiff’s claim at step two was premature.
Court Description: Social Security. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment affirming an administrative law judge’s denial of plaintiff’s application for social security disability insurance benefits at step two of the sequential analysis.
The panel explained that at step two of the sequential analysis, claimants need only make a de minimis showing for the ALJ’s analysis to proceed past this step and that properly denying a claim at step two requires an unambiguous record showing only minimal limitations. The seven-month period for which plaintiff seeks disability benefits falls within a two-and-a-half-year gap in his medical treatment records.
The panel held that plaintiff made the requisite showing to meet step two’s low bar where he submitted evidence that he suffered from multiple chronic medical conditions that both preceded and succeeded the gap in his treatment. Plaintiff explained the gap in treatment was due to his inability to pay. In addition, an agency medical expert testified that he would expect that plaintiff experienced symptoms serious enough to require treatment during the relevant period. The panel concluded that this cumulative evidence was enough to establish that plaintiff’s claim was nonfrivolous and to require the ALJ to proceed to step three. Therefore, the ALJ’s denial of plaintiff’s claim at step two was premature.
The panel also held that the ALJ did not provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting plaintiff’s symptom testimony.
The panel reversed the district court’s judgment with instructions to remand the case to the agency for further proceedings.
Dissenting, Judge Graber would hold that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden at step two of showing that he had a “severe” impairment during the seven-month period when he presented no medical evidence.
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.