Sandra Valladares v. Kilolo Kijakazi ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDRA VALLADARES, No. 21-35379
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:20-cv-05040-EFS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 11, 2022
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: HAWKINS, PAEZ, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Sandra Valladares appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for Disability
Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the district court’s decision de novo. Ford v. Saul,
950 F.3d 1141, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2020). We “will disturb the denial of benefits only
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
if the decision ‘contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.’” Id.
at 1154 (quoting Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008)). We
vacate and remand with instructions to remand to the Commissioner.
The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred at step three by failing to
address Listing 1.02A “Major dysfunction of a joint(s)” with respect to the post-
polio deformities of Valladares’s left knee and ankle. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt.
P, App. 1, § 1.02A. “[I]n determining whether a claimant equals a listing under step
three . . . the ALJ must explain adequately his evaluation of alternative tests and the
combined effects of the impairments.” Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172, 176 (9th
Cir. 1990). The ALJ “must evaluate the relevant evidence before concluding that a
claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment.” Lewis v. Apfel,
236 F.3d 503, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). “A boilerplate finding is insufficient to support
a conclusion that a claimant’s impairment does not [meet or equal a listed
impairment].” Id.The ALJ did not address Listing 1.02A, and the decision’s boilerplate no-
listings finding is insufficient. While the ALJ briefly concluded that Valladares did
not meet the definition of § 1.00(B)(2)(b) “inability to ambulate effectively,” she did
so in the context of Valladares’s spinal impairments rather than her left knee and
ankle impairments. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 1.00(B)(2)(b).
Further, the ALJ referenced Dr. John Morse’s opinion that Valladares “is able to
2
ambulate at the sedentary level” only after step three, as part of the residual
functional capacity determination. See Lewis, 236 F.3d at 512. Finally, the ALJ did
not address Dr. Morse’s opinion that Valladares should “avoid even moderate
exposure to uneven terrain” in the context of § 1.00(B)(2)(b)’s example of
ineffective ambulation as “the inability to walk a block at a reasonable pace on rough
or uneven surfaces.”1 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 1.00(B)(2)(b).
While “[i]t is unnecessary to require the Secretary . . . to state why a claimant
failed to satisfy every different section of the listing of impairments,” Gonzalez v.
Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1990), here the ALJ’s discussion at step three
does not sufficiently reveal her reasoning with respect to Listing 1.02A to allow us
to evaluate it for substantial evidence, see Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,
775 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2014). We therefore vacate the district court’s
judgment and remand with instructions to remand to the Commissioner. See Marcia,
900 F.2d at 176 (“Where the Secretary is in a better position than this court to
evaluate the evidence, remand is appropriate.”). Because we remand for
reconsideration of step three, we do not reach the other arguments raised.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
1
Appearing to credit that aspect of Dr. Morse’s opinion, the ALJ reached a residual
functional capacity determination that included the following limitation: “[T]he
claimant would need to avoid all exposure to hazards and walking on uneven
ground.”
3