Cross v. O'MalleyCross v. O'Malley
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- N. Randy Smith, Gabriel P. Sanchez, Salvador Mendoza Jr.
SUMMARY*
Social Security
The panel affirmed the district court‘s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security‘s denial of a claimant‘s application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act.
Claimant argued that the Social Security Administration‘s 2017 revised regulations for evaluating medical opinions were partially invalid because they did not provide a reasoned explanation for permitting an administrative law judge to avoid articulating how he or she accounts for the “examining relationship” or “specialization” factors under the Social Security Act or the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA“).
The panel held that the 2017 medical-evidence regulations were valid under the Social Security Act. The Commissioner‘s decision to promulgate the 2017 medical-evidence regulations fell within his “wide latitude” to make rules and regulations, particularly those governing the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence to establish the right to benefits.
The panel joined the Eleventh Circuit in holding that the regulations were valid under the APA. The agency‘s response to public comment and reasoned explanation for the regulatory changes established that the regulations were not arbitrary or capricious.
The panel addressed claimant‘s other claims in an unpublished memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this opinion.
OPINION
SANCHEZ, Circuit Judge:
Claimant Juanita L. Cross appeals the district court‘s decision affirming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration‘s denial of her application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. She argues that the Social Security Administration‘s 2017 medical-evidence regulations are partially invalid, rendering the administrative law judge‘s (“ALJ“) application of those regulations to her claim reversible legal error. We have jurisdiction under
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 11, 2019, Cross filed her application for supplemental security income based on her alleged disability. The Social Security Administration denied her claim on June 12, 2019 and upon reconsideration on September 11, 2019. At Cross‘s request, ALJ David Johnson held an administrative hearing on December 9, 2020.
In his decision on January 29, 2021, the ALJ used the five-step sequential evaluation process to find that Cross was not disabled. See
The Appeals Council denied Cross‘s request for review, making the ALJ‘s decision the Commissioner‘s final decision. Cross sought judicial review, and the district court affirmed the Commissioner‘s decision that Cross was not disabled on December 7, 2022. Cross timely appealed.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
When determining whether a claimant is eligible for benefits, an ALJ need not take every medical opinion at “face value.” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1155 (9th Cir. 2020). Rather, the ALJ must scrutinize the various—often conflicting—medical opinions to determine how much
In January 2017, the Social Security Administration issued revised regulations for evaluating medical opinions relating to claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. See Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01 (Jan. 18, 2017) (codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 404 & 416). The regulations provide that ALJs will no longer “defer or give any specific evidentiary weight” to any medical opinions.
The more relevant the objective medical evidence and supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to support his or her medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), the more persuasive the medical opinions or prior administrative medical finding(s) will be.
The more consistent a medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s) is with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources in the claim, the more persuasive the medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s) will be.
An ALJ may discuss other factors, such as the medical source‘s “relationship with the claimant” or “specialization,” but generally has no obligation to do so.
Thus, for social security disability claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, these new regulations apply. In applying these new regulations, we recently held in Woods that the “specific and legitimate” standard was “clearly irreconcilable” with the “intervening higher authority” of the regulations. 32 F.4th at 790 (citation omitted). Accordingly, these regulations “displace[d] our longstanding case law requiring an ALJ to provide ‘specific and legitimate’ reasons for rejecting an examining doctor‘s opinion.” Id. at 787. Even under the revised regulations, however, “an ALJ cannot reject an examining or treating doctor‘s opinion as unsupported or inconsistent without providing an explanation supported by substantial evidence.” Id. at 792.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under
DISCUSSION
In Woods, we confirmed that the 2017 regulations were irreconcilable with our prior case law, but we did not consider whether the regulations complied with the Social Security Act or Administrative Procedure Act (“APA“). See 32 F.4th at 790 n.3. That issue is now squarely before us. Cross argues that the regulations are partially invalid because they do not provide a reasoned explanation for permitting an ALJ to avoid articulating how he or she accounts for the “examining relationship” or “specialization” factors under the Social Security Act or APA. See
I. The Social Security Act
The Social Security Act empowers the Commissioner to “adopt reasonable and proper rules and regulations to regulate and provide for the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence and the method of taking and furnishing the same . . . .”
The agency‘s broad mandate from Congress plainly encompasses the Commissioner‘s authority to adopt regulations to govern the weighing of medical evidence. In Woods, we observed that “[t]he Social Security Act provides no guidance as to how the agency should evaluate medical evidence.” 32 F.4th at 790. “The Commissioner has wide latitude ‘to make rules and regulations and to establish procedures . . . to carry out [the statutory] provisions,’ in particular regulations governing ‘the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence . . . to establish the right to benefits.‘” Id. (quoting
It is true, as Cross contends, that
We hold that the Commissioner‘s decision to promulgate the 2017 medical-evidence regulations falls within his “wide latitude ‘to make rules and regulations,‘” particularly those “governing ‘the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence . . . to establish the right to benefits.‘” Woods, 32 F.4th at 790 (quoting
II. The APA
“The APA sets forth the procedures by which federal agencies are accountable to the public and their actions subject to review by the courts.” Dep‘t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1905 (2020) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). Agencies must “engage in ‘reasoned decisionmaking.‘” Id. (citation omitted). We do not “substitute [our] judgment for that of the agency” but rather “assess only whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, we will “set aside” the Commissioner‘s rulemaking only if it was “arbitrary or capricious.” See id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Cross challenges the validity of the regulations under the APA because the agency did not provide a “reasoned explanation” for their adoption. Cross‘s opening brief fails to acknowledge the agency‘s published reasons for the changes and its response to public comment from its earlier notice of proposed rulemaking. See Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01.
At the time, the agency explained that changes to the healthcare system since the adoption of the prior regulations in 1991, along with the agency‘s long experience in adjudicating disability claims, showed that “supportability” and “consistency” were the two most important factors for evaluating medical opinions. Id. at 5853. “Many individuals receive health care from multiple medical sources,” the agency explained, “such as from coordinated and managed care organizations,” and “less frequently develop a sustained relationship with one treating physician.” Id. Supportability and consistency, according to the agency, are therefore “more objective measures that will foster the fairness and efficiency in [its] administrative process.” Id. Moreover, the agency expressed concern that, under the former rule, courts “focused more on whether [the agency] sufficiently articulated the weight [it] gave treating source opinions, rather than on whether substantial evidence support[ed]” the agency‘s “final decision.” Id. Still, the agency noted, the regulations “retain the relationship between the medical source and the claimant as one of the factors” to consider. Id.
The Eleventh Circuit recently held these regulations to be valid under the APA based on the agency‘s reasoned explanation
CONCLUSION
The Social Security Administration‘s 2017 medical-evidence regulations fall within the broad scope of the Commissioner‘s authority under the Social Security Act, and the agency provided a reasoned explanation for the regulatory changes, making the regulations neither arbitrary nor capricious under the APA.
AFFIRMED.