William Ludwig v. Michael Astrue
681 F.3d 1047
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ludwig applied for Social Security disability alleging epilepsy, bipolar disorder, depression, insomnia, and social anxiety; he had not worked since being fired earlier in 2006.
- Medical records show knee, back, and seizure-related complaints with conflicting descriptions of severity and capacity.
- SSA consultant assessed mild mental restrictions and moderate physical capacity before the hearing.
- At the hearing Ludwig testified to significant limitations, including pain with lifting and anxiety in crowds.
- Post-hearing, an FBI agent privately informed the ALJ Ludwig appeared to walk normally in the parking lot but had an exaggerated limp inside the courthouse.
- The ALJ relied on a combination of medical records and his impressions, finding Ludwig not disabled and credible overall, and issued a decision denying benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ex parte communication to the ALJ was error | Ludwig | Ludwig | Yes, error; but no prejudice shown. |
| Whether the ex parte evidence prejudiced Ludwig's substantial rights | Ludwig claimed due process was violated | Evidence not given significant weight | No substantial prejudice; harmless error. |
| Whether the error required reversal or remand | Ludwig | Remand not required if harmless | Affirmed; no remand necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guenther v. Comm’r, 939 F.2d 758 (9th Cir. 1991) (ex parte communications disallowed; due process concerns)
- Guenther v. Commissioner, 889 F.2d 882 (9th Cir. 1989) (ex parte proceedings are anathema; require meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (U.S. 2009) (harmless-error standard applies to administrative adjudications)
- McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) (applies Sanders to Social Security disability cases; substantial prejudice required)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless-error analysis; case-specific factors)
- Alexander Shokai, Inc. v. Comm’r, 34 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1994) (distinguishes open-court vs ex parte errors when counsel can participate)