Emily Attmore v. Carolyn Colvin
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12049
9th Cir.2016Background
- Emily Attmore applied for Social Security disability benefits for bipolar disorder; ALJ found she was disabled from April 15, 2007 to March 23, 2009 (a closed period) and concluded she medically improved as of March 24, 2009.
- Medical record showed repeated hospitalizations in 2008 for hallucinations, paranoia, and a suicide attempt; thereafter mixed treatment notes from psychiatrist Dr. Robert Wolf showing intermittent stability and frequent flare-ups.
- The ALJ relied on Dr. Wolf’s March 23, 2009 note stating Attmore was "generally doing well," plus other notes of improved social functioning, to find medical improvement and limit benefits to the closed period.
- Appeals Council denied review; the district court upheld the ALJ, and Attmore appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit considered (1) the proper baseline for determining medical improvement in closed-period cases and (2) whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding of medical improvement.
- Court held the ALJ used the correct comparative approach but that substantial evidence did not support a finding of sustained medical improvement; case reversed and remanded for calculation and award of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper baseline for medical-improvement comparison in a closed-period case | ALJ erred by not explicitly identifying dates compared; must cite specific prior decision/date | ALJ’s discussion implied comparison to the disability-period medical evidence and satisfied regulatory purpose | ALJ need not cite an earlier adjudication date in closed-period cases; compare the medical evidence that was used to find disability with evidence at time of alleged improvement — no legal error here |
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding of medical improvement as of March 24, 2009 | Attmore: improvement cited by ALJ was isolated and temporary; overall record shows recurring, severe flare-ups so no sustained improvement | Commissioner: isolated favorable notes (e.g., Dr. Wolf’s March 23, 2009 note) and improved social activity support medical improvement | Substantial evidence does not support medical-improvement finding: improvements were temporary, episodic, and not representative of sustained, broader functional gains; ALJ improperly relied on isolated instances |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for substantial-evidence review)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may not "cherry pick" isolated improvements; must show broader sustained development)
- Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001) (improvement does not necessarily eliminate serious functional effects)
- Pickett v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 288 (11th Cir. 1987) (medical-improvement safeguard applies to closed-period awards)
- Waters v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 2002) (medical-improvement standard applicable to closed-period cases)
- Shepherd v. Apfel, 184 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 1999) (closed-period baseline may derive from disability-onset evidence)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (drawing reasonable inferences from ALJ findings)