Killman v. Dudek
2:24-cv-01337
D. Nev.Jul 18, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Kendall Killman applied for Child Disability Benefits (CDB) under the Social Security Act, alleging disability from multiple severe impairments including Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, scoliosis, and mental health disorders.
- His claim was denied initially, on reconsideration, and by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who found the Plaintiff not disabled under the Act.
- The ALJ found Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms and provider opinions inconsistent with the objective medical record, citing improvement with treatment and lack of certain prescribed interventions.
- Plaintiff sought judicial review, alleging errors in discounting medical opinions, ALJ bias, and errors of law in the disability analysis, and later proffered new evidence (Medicaid award of personal care hours) not previously in the record.
- The court reviewed the briefs, administrative record, and new evidence submitted after the ALJ's decision.
- The key legal question was whether the ALJ's decision was based on substantial evidence and correct legal standards, with remand possible if new, material evidence justifying reconsideration was presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ's treatment of medical opinions | ALJ improperly discounted treating sources' opinions (Robertson, Gravley, Friedman) | ALJ gave valid reasons for discounting, per regulations | ALJ's assessment supported by substantial evidence; minor errors harmless |
| ALJ bias/Abuse of Power | ALJ’s low approval rate and hearing conduct showed bias | Approval rates/statistics not proof of bias; hearing conduct was proper | No bias; hearing conduct was in Plaintiff’s best interest |
| Error of law in Listings analysis | ALJ erred in applying disability Listings (1.00, 11.00, 12.00, 14.00) | Plaintiff failed to specify errors or point to relevant evidence | No identifiable legal error; Plaintiff’s claims unsubstantiated |
| New evidence/remand | New PCA hours award is material, showing functional limitation exceeding ALJ’s findings | New evidence not timely or material; no reasonable probability of change | New evidence is material; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence standard for reviewing Commissioner’s decisions)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of substantial evidence in administrative law)
- Martinez v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771 (9th Cir. 1986) (court weighs both supporting and detracting evidence)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (five-step disability evaluation process)
- Stout v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (court cannot affirm on grounds not invoked by agency)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (error must be harmful to warrant reversal)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (presumption of ALJ impartiality)
- Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2020) (utility of medical opinions for RFC if functional limits unspecified)