Background
Michelle Brandon appealed after the district court affirmed the Social Security Administration’s denial of her disability-benefits claim. She challenged the administrative law judge’s treatment of Dr. Michael Kushner’s opinion, argued the wrong legal standards were used for her pre-March twenty-seventh, twenty seventeen claim, disputed the finding that she had no past relevant work, and contested the ultimate nondisability determination.
The court’s reasoning
The panel stated that a district court decision affirming an administrative law judge denial of benefits is reviewed de novo, while the administrative law judge decision is reviewed for substantial evidence or legal error. On the medical-opinion issue, the panel held that the administrative law judge permissibly gave Dr. Michael Kushner’s opinion only some weight because he saw Brandon once, reviewed no treatment notes or other records, and his findings were at times internally inconsistent, while his statement that her symptoms would significantly interfere with daily functioning was vague and equivocal. On Brandon’s argument that the administrative law judge used the wrong legal standards, the panel acknowledged that revised regulations apply to claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, but held that Brandon did not explain how the administrative law judge misapplied the governing standards, so the argument was waived as inadequately briefed. On the past-relevant-work issue, the panel concluded that even if there were error, it was inconsequential because the ultimate disability determination did not hinge on work history. Finally, the panel held that the nondisability finding was supported by treatment notes from various medical providers and Brandon’s own testimony, which satisfied the substantial-evidence threshold.
Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ’s decision must be affirmed.
Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 494 (9th Cir. 2022)
What it means going forward
The decision leaves in place the denial of Brandon’s disability-benefits claim and reinforces that appellate review will defer to an administrative law judge’s reasonable weighing of medical evidence when supported by substantial evidence.