Cobb Mutter v. Kilolo Kijakazi
18-15877
| 9th Cir. | Oct 13, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Cobb Laverne Mutter appealed the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s denial of Title II disability insurance benefits; this Court reviews de novo and affirms.
- The ALJ found Mutter not disabled, discounted his symptom testimony based on inconsistencies with the record, a lengthy gap in treatment, conservative care, and effective medication management.
- The ALJ considered but discounted the VA disability rating and Dr. Geoffrey Hutchinson’s opinion as conclusory, unsupported by the record, and inconsistent with Mutter’s later travels and missionary activity.
- The ALJ gave great weight to consulting psychologist Troy Ewing’s 2014 opinion as to Mutter’s pre-2009 functioning, assigned little weight to psychologist Robert Morgan’s opinion, and credited nonexamining medical advisor Dr. Cynthia Horn.
- The ALJ kept the record open and inquired about outstanding VA records; the administrative record lacked VA determinations for additional ratable claims.
- The Ninth Circuit held the ALJ’s credibility findings, evaluation of medical opinions, and RFC determination were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of symptom testimony | ALJ improperly discounted Mutter’s subjective symptom testimony | ALJ gave specific, clear, convincing reasons (inconsistent record, treatment gap, conservative care, medication efficacy) | Affirmed: discounting proper and supported |
| VA disability rating and Dr. Hutchinson opinion | ALJ erred in rejecting VA rating and Hutchinson’s opinion | VA rating was conclusory, lacked record support, and contradicted later activities; ALJ addressed substance of Hutchinson’s opinion | Affirmed: ALJ properly discounted rating; any omission re: Hutchinson harmless |
| Duty to obtain VA records for additional ratable claims | ALJ failed to address VA notation that other claims were ratable | Record did not contain those VA determinations; ALJ inquired and left record open, satisfying duty to inquire | Affirmed: no error in procedure |
| Weight to psychological opinions and RFC | ALJ erred in crediting 2014 Ewing and nonexamining Horn and rejecting Morgan | Ewing reasonably applied to pre-2009 state; Morgan inconsistent with record and claimant’s activities; Horn appropriately relied on evidence | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports RFC and opinion weighting |
Key Cases Cited
- Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for district court affirmances of ALJ decisions)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ may discount symptom testimony for inconsistencies)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may reject complaints based on unexplained treatment gaps or improvement with conservative treatment)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (lack of corroborating medical evidence can factor into credibility)
- Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2010) (ALJ may discount VA rating when later evidence shows improvement)
- Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ may discount VA rating when additional record evidence undermines it)
- Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2020) (harmless error standard for ALJ’s consideration of medical opinions)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (ALJ’s role in resolving conflicts and rejecting conclusory or unsupported medical opinions)
- McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) (ALJ’s duty to inquire when a VA disability rating may exist)
- Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may translate assessed limitations into concrete work restrictions)