L.D. v. Saul
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:20-cv-06906
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In L.D. v. Kijakazi, Judge Demarchi denied reconsideration, leaving the Social Security case remanded for further proceedings.
L.D. and the Commissioner of Social Security; the denial leaves the case remanded to the agency for further proceedings.
What happened
In L.D. v. Kijakazi, the court had previously sent L.D.’s Social Security case back to the agency after finding that the administrative law judge mishandled medical opinions and L.D.’s borderline age situation.
The Commissioner asked the court to change that judgment and remand the case only for the medical-opinion error. The court rejected the request, finding that the administrative law judge had not considered L.D.’s age near the next age category when deciding her claim.
Judge Demarchi denied the Commissioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The case remains remanded for further proceedings under the court’s prior and current orders.
The detailed version
- L.D. v. Saul · No. 5:20-cv-06906
- Virginia Demarchi
- Nov. 22, 2022
Background
The court had previously granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. It remanded L.D.’s Social Security case for further proceedings after finding that the administrative law judge (ALJ) had erred in evaluating medical opinions and in considering L.D.’s borderline age situation.
The Commissioner moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment concerning the borderline-age issue. The Commissioner asked the court to remove that finding and remand the case based only on the medical-opinion error. L.D. opposed the motion.
Borderline-age issue
Social Security regulations place claimants into age categories that can affect the disability determination: “younger person,” “closely approaching advanced age,” and “advanced age.” A borderline situation exists when a claimant is within a few days to a few months of reaching the next older category and using that category would result in a finding of disability.
The court explained that an ALJ is not required to use the older age category in every borderline situation. However, the ALJ must consider whether to use it after evaluating the overall effect of the factors in the claimant’s case. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the ALJ does not have to explain in writing why the older category was not used, but the decision must show that the borderline situation was considered.
The court had found that L.D. was within three months of turning 50 when the ALJ issued the decision. But the ALJ’s decision stated only that L.D. was 44 years old on the alleged disability-onset date. The court concluded that the ALJ had not considered L.D.’s age as of the date of the ALJ’s decision and had not considered whether to use the higher age category.
Ruling
The court was not persuaded that it had made a legal or factual error. It also rejected the Commissioner’s argument that the remand was based on the agency’s internal operations manual. The court clarified that the remand was based on the ALJ’s failure to consider L.D.’s borderline age at all, not merely on a failure to follow agency policy.
Judge Demarchi denied the Commissioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the current and prior orders. The court stated that the ALJ need not explain in writing why a higher age category was not used, but must document that L.D.’s borderline age situation was considered.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.