Jeremy Kitchen v. Kilolo Kijakazi
82 F.4th 732
9th Cir.2023Background:
- Jeremy Kitchen, an Oregon National Guard veteran injured in Iraq, suffers PTSD and a right-knee injury; the VA assigned an overall 80% disability rating (70% PTSD, plus knee ratings).
- Kitchen applied for Social Security disability insurance on Jan. 30, 2020, alleging disability since Mar. 1, 2017; earlier applications (2017–2019) were denied.
- Exam records: independent examiner Dr. Anderson found the knee normal; psychologist Dr. Condon noted concentration/memory issues and interpersonal impairments; treating clinician Dr. Adams completed a checklist rating extreme/marked limitations across many mental-work domains.
- ALJ assessed an RFC limiting Kitchen to simple, routine tasks, no close teamwork or public contact, and minimal interaction; the ALJ discounted Dr. Adams’ checkbox opinion, incorporated many of Dr. Condon’s interaction-related findings, and did not analyze the VA disability rating under the 2017 SSA evidentiary rules.
- A vocational expert testified jobs existed consistent with the RFC; the ALJ denied benefits, the Appeals Council denied review, the district court affirmed, and Kitchen appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ erred by not discussing the VA disability rating | Kitchen: ALJ must give VA rating weight (McCartey) | Commissioner: 2017 SSA regs make other-agency decisions neither valuable nor persuasive | Court: McCartey is superseded for post-2017 claims; ALJ not required to analyze VA rating (affirmed) |
| Whether the ALJ improperly discounted Kitchen’s testimony | Kitchen: his symptom testimony was credible and showed disabling limitations | Commissioner: objective record, clinicians’ findings, and improvement with treatment undermine credibility | Court: ALJ gave specific, clear, convincing reasons tied to medical evidence and treatment response (affirmed) |
| Whether the ALJ improperly rejected Drs. Condon’s and Adams’ opinions | Kitchen: ALJ failed to assess supportability/consistency and improperly rejected treating/examining opinions | Commissioner: ALJ analyzed supportability/consistency under 2017 regs; Dr. Adams’ extreme checklist was inconsistent with records and his own notes; Dr. Condon’s limits were largely incorporated into RFC | Court: ALJ adequately explained persuasiveness under the revised regs; properly discounted Adams and accounted for Condon (affirmed) |
| Whether Kitchen’s impairments met or equaled a Listing (paragraph C) | Kitchen: evidence met paragraph C criteria for serious, persistent mental disorder | Commissioner: record shows intermittent treatment, improvement, and not only marginal adjustment | Court: Substantial evidence that paragraph C not met—ALJ reasonably found no marginal adjustment and insufficient support for Listing (affirmed) |
| Whether the VE testimony was based on an incomplete hypothetical | Kitchen: VE relied on RFC that omitted disabling opinion limitations | Commissioner: RFC incorporated key limitations from treating/examining sources; VE hypothetical matched RFC | Court: VE testimony was proper because RFC reasonably reflected limitations supported by the record (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785 (9th Cir. 2022) (agency must articulate persuasiveness using supportability and consistency under 2017 regs)
- McCartey v. Massanari, 298 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2002) (pre-2017 rule giving VA ratings special weight; court holds DST superseded by regs)
- Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489 (9th Cir. 2022) (ALJ must give clear, convincing reasons to reject claimant’s testimony when contradicted by objective evidence)
- Treichler v. Comm’r, 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must tie credibility findings to substantial evidence)
- Bray v. Comm’r, 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (VE testimony has no evidentiary value if hypothetical omits claimant’s limitations)
- Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2020) (ALJ may reject check-box reports lacking explanation)
- Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (limitations in hypothetical must reflect claimant’s credible restrictions)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may discount medical opinions inconsistent with own clinical findings)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (contradiction with medical record can justify rejecting claimant testimony)
- Turner v. Comm’r, 613 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (ALJ may incorporate physician assessments into RFC)