D. v. Kijakazi
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-04233
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In D. (Labryssa) v. Kijakazi, Judge Freeman granted the Commissioner’s motion to correct the remand order without changing the remand result.
The amendment affected the legal explanation in the remand order, while leaving Jesse “Labryssa” D.’s remand for further proceedings unchanged.
What happened
In Jesse “Labryssa” D. v. Kilolo Kijakazi, the Commissioner asked the court to change its earlier judgment because the court had misstated the legal standard for reviewing medical opinions under revised Social Security regulations.
The court agreed that its earlier statement was incorrect because the Ninth Circuit had already addressed the issue in Woods v. Kijakazi. The Commissioner did not challenge the court’s conclusion that the administrative law judge had not adequately supported the rejection of Dr. Laura Jean Catlin’s medical opinion and that the case had to be sent back for further proceedings.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the motion and ordered an amended remand order. The amendment corrected the legal discussion but did not change the court’s overall conclusion that the case must be remanded.
The detailed version
- D. v. Kijakazi · No. 5:21-cv-04233
- Beth Freeman
- July 20, 2022
Background
The Commissioner moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. The motion challenged part of the court’s June 6, 2022 remand order, but not the court’s overall conclusion that substantial evidence did not support the administrative law judge’s handling of Dr. Laura Jean Catlin’s medical opinion.
The earlier order had explained that revised Social Security regulations eliminated assigning greater evidentiary weight to certain types of medical opinions and instead required a multi-factor evaluation of an opinion’s persuasiveness. It then stated that it remained uncertain whether the revised regulations would change the Ninth Circuit’s requirements for explaining the rejection of medical opinions.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that this statement was no longer accurate when the remand order was issued. Before that order, the Ninth Circuit had published Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785 (9th Cir. 2022). Woods held that the revised regulations were consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s prior recognition of the relationship between a claimant and treating or examining physicians. Under the revised regulations, an administrative law judge’s rejection of an examining or treating doctor’s opinion must be supported by substantial evidence.
The court therefore found that its earlier remand order contained a legal error because the Ninth Circuit had already resolved the applicable evidentiary standard. The opinion also noted that the Commissioner had not filed a statement alerting the court to Woods after briefing ended.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the Commissioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The court stated that it would issue an amended remand order revising specified portions to reflect Woods. Because the court had already concluded that the administrative law judge failed to meet even the lower substantial-evidence standard, the amendment did not change the conclusion that the rejection of Dr. Catlin’s testimony was inadequately supported or that the case must be remanded for further proceedings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.