Michelle Ford v. Andrew Saul, 950 F.3d 1141

Michelle Ford applied for Social Security disability (Titles II and XVI); ALJ found her not disabled from March 26, 2011 to January 2, 2016, but disabled thereafter based on an age-category change; district court affirmed and this appeal followed.
Medical record: foot surgeries (2012, 2014) with temporary use of scooter/walker; generally improving physical exams 2013–2016; part‑time FedEx work in 2016 (12–13 hrs/week, some 6–8‑hour shifts).
Treating PCP Dr. Ignatius Medani completed a check‑box RFC/Listing questionnaire (Sept. 2014) opining severe limits and that Listings 1.02/1.03 were met; his treatment notes showed few objective abnormalities (e.g., “very mild” carpal tunnel) and mainly medication refills.
Examining psychiatrist Dr. Michelle Zipperman diagnosed PTSD/psychosis/depression and opined limited workplace functioning; other mental‑health records and non‑examining psychiatrists showed largely normal concentration and ability to perform simple/familiar tasks.
At the hearing a vocational expert (VE) testified that large numbers of jobs existed that Ford could do but could not produce the underlying data or cite the specific sources when asked; Ford requested a post‑hearing subpoena for the VE’s documentation.
ALJ discounted the opinions of Drs. Medani and Zipperman for specific, supported reasons; refused to issue a post‑hearing subpoena; relied on VE testimony at step five; Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Weight given to treating/examining physicians	ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Medani and Dr. Zipperman; their opinions are supported and should control	ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons: inconsistency with objective findings and provider notes, claimant activity (work), internal contradictions, and inadequate explanations	Affirmed — ALJ permissibly discounted both opinions with supported reasons
Whether impairments meet Listings 1.02 / 1.03 (ambulation/reconstructive surgery)	Ford meets or equals Listings due to ambulation limits and Dr. Medani’s questionnaire	Record lacks required listing elements (gross anatomical deformity or qualifying reconstructive surgery); Medani’s checkbox answer is unexplained and contradicted by records	Affirmed — Listings not met or equaled; any ALJ factual misstatement (1/4 block vs 1/4 mile) was harmless
Subpoena / VE underlying data and due process	ALJ should have subpoenaed VE data; VE testimony unreliable without sources; due process violated	Ford’s subpoena request was untimely (post‑hearing); SSA rules don’t require VE to produce data at hearing; VE testimony may suffice as substantial evidence	Affirmed — ALJ did not abuse discretion; VE testimony admissible and substantial evidence absent contrary proof

Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (explains substantial‑evidence standard for VE testimony and that SSA proceedings do not mirror civil discovery rules)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (standard for rejecting treating‑physician opinions when contradicted)
Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1988) (treating physician opinions normally entitled to substantial weight)
Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (review for substantial evidence)
Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (VE’s expertise provides foundation for testimony)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (permissible to reject check‑box forms lacking explanation)
Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (VE testimony regarded as inherently reliable absent contrary evidence)
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (a claimant must meet all listing criteria to be found per se disabled)