Keyser v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
648 F.3d 721
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Keyser applied for disability insurance and SSI benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.
- Her alleged disabilities include bullous emphysema, depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder; she alleges disability began after a right lung collapse.
- Treating physicians (Drs. Jacobs and Knapp) diagnosed severe emphysema and risk of another collapse, and noted mental health impairments.
- Dr. Monteverdi diagnosed bipolar disorder with paranoid and schizotypal traits and provided a Global Assessment of Functioning of 55–65; medical source statement indicated moderate functional limitations.
- A year after onset, state agency reviewer Dr. Lahman found depression and anxiety; he rated functional limitations as mild in three areas and no limitation in decompensation, and the ALJ adopted his view in part.
- The ALJ denied benefits, finding emphysema severe but mental impairment not severe, and concluded Keyser could perform Cashier II work with restrictions; Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed; Ninth Circuit reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ followed 404.1520a for mental impairment at step two | Keyser asserts failure to document four functional areas. | Keyser's claim relies on outdated procedure and misreads Hoopai. | Reversed and remanded for proper application of the technique. |
| Whether failure to attach/incorporate a PRTF is reversible error | ALJ failed to include/trace PRTF findings. | Regulation allows narrative rationale; attachment not required. | Reversed and remanded; error requiring remand per Gutierrez line of cases. |
| Whether the error was harmless given colorable mental impairment claim | There was a colorable mental impairment needing proper analysis. | Any error was harmless since physical impairment drove disability. | Not harmless; remand required to determine if impairment meets/listed criteria. |
| Whether ALJ erred at step three by not considering listed impairments for mental condition | If mental impairment is severe, must assess meets/equivalent to listed disorder. | ALJ deemed mental impairment not severe; analysis moot. | Remand necessary due to step-two error preventing step-three evaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gutierrez v. Apfel, 199 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding failure to attach/describe PRTF requires reversal when colorable mental impairment asserted)
- Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (allows incorporation of PRTF findings via narrative, not mandatory attachment)
- Stambaugh v. Sullivan, 929 F.2d 292 (7th Cir. 1991) (failure to document PRTF requires reversal)
- Hill v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 972 (10th Cir. 1991) (same requirement to evaluate mental disorder per technique)
- Montgomery v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 98 (8th Cir. 1994) (reversal for failing to evaluate mental disorder per regs)
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (colorable claim of mental impairment requires remand for proper procedure)