Laurence Valbush v. Kilolo Kijakazi
20-35131
| 9th Cir. | Dec 15, 2021Background:
- Laurence Valbush appealed denial of Social Security disability benefits for the period April 19, 2013 through February 23, 2015; the ALJ found Valbush disabled beginning February 23, 2015 when he turned 55.
- The district court affirmed the ALJ; Ninth Circuit reviews such affirmances de novo and will reverse only for legal error or lack of substantial evidence.
- The ALJ gave little weight to medical opinions from Dr. McGrath, Dr. Evans, physical therapist Malijan, and psychologist Dr. Wingerson.
- The ALJ relied on contradictions between those opinions and the overall medical record, state-agency consultants’ assessments, contemporaneous exam findings showing improvement or normal motor/mental status, and lack of objective support for extreme limitations.
- The court held the ALJ provided specific, legitimate, or germane reasons (as applicable) to discount each opinion; any error regarding Dr. Wingerson was harmless because his opinion post-dated the ALJ’s disability onset finding.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did ALJ err in discounting Dr. McGrath’s opinion? | Valbush: ALJ improperly rejected treating/examining doctor’s limitations. | Commissioner: Opinion contradicted by state-agency reviewers and record; unsupported by objective findings; doctor noted improvement. | No error — ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence. |
| Did ALJ err in discounting Dr. Evans’s opinion? | Valbush: Evans showed inability to perform sedentary work and need for breaks/absences. | Commissioner: Opinion inconsistent with record (no significant motor/gait/sensation problems) and cursorily supported. | No error — ALJ reasonably discounted it. |
| Did ALJ err in giving little weight to PT Malijan? | Valbush: PT’s functional opinion should be credited. | Commissioner: PT is not an acceptable medical source; ALJ may discount with germane reasons. | No error — ALJ provided germane reasons (inconsistency with record). |
| Did ALJ err in discounting Dr. Wingerson’s opinion? | Valbush: ALJ improperly rejected psychologist’s assessment of mental limits. | Commissioner: Mental status exams were generally normal; record lacks supporting evidence; any error is harmless because opinion is prospective. | No reversible error — ALJ gave sufficient reasons; any error harmless because opinion post-dates disability onset finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for district-court affirmances of ALJ decisions)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (contradicted treating/examining opinions require specific and legitimate reasons to be rejected)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (ALJ may discount conclusory or unsupported treating opinions)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (discrepancy between a doctor’s observations and later limiting opinion supports discounting)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (requirements for discounting opinions from non-acceptable medical sources and harmless-error doctrine)