I. v. Kijakazi

Background

The plaintiff sought Social Security benefits for physical and mental impairments, including a gunshot wound to the spine, depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. The plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying the benefits claim.

On March 1, 2022, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. A remand sends the matter back to the agency for additional action.

Motion to Alter the Judgment

The Commissioner moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. That rule permits a court to revise a judgment in limited circumstances, including to correct a serious legal or factual error, consider newly discovered evidence, prevent serious unfairness, or account for an intervening change in controlling law.

The Commissioner did not argue that the court’s ultimate conclusion was wrong. Instead, the Commissioner argued that the earlier order used terminology—particularly “weight” and “weighing” medical evidence—that no longer applied under revised Social Security regulations. The Commissioner also argued that those regulations had displaced the Ninth Circuit’s treating-source rule.

Court’s Analysis

The court noted that it had not needed to resolve whether the treating-source rule had been displaced because, under either that rule or the revised regulations, the administrative law judge’s consideration of the medical evidence was not supported by substantial evidence.

After the earlier order, the Ninth Circuit decided Woods v. Kijakazi. The Ninth Circuit held that the revised regulations were incompatible with the former rule giving special deference to treating and examining physicians because of their relationships with claimants. The Ninth Circuit also explained that an administrative law judge still must explain, with substantial-evidence support, how persuasive each medical opinion is and how the agency considered the opinions’ supportability and consistency.

The court concluded that Woods did not undermine its reasoning. Although the earlier order sometimes used “weighing” interchangeably with “evaluating” or “considering,” the Commissioner did not show that this wording affected the court’s ultimate decision. The court was not persuaded by the Commissioner’s request to replace “opinion” with “prior administrative medical finding.”

Nevertheless, because Woods was an intervening Ninth Circuit decision, the court exercised its discretion to clarify the remand instructions and remove references to weighing or reweighing evidence.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the Commissioner’s motion to alter the judgment. It stated that it would issue an amended order. The order disposed of Docket No. 34.