Sylvia Curtiss v. Kilolo Kijakazi ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYLVIA CURTISS, No. 22-35371
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 9:21-cv-00008-KLD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Kathleen L. De-Soto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 7, 2023 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Sylvia Curtiss (“Curtiss”) appeals the district court’s order
affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for social
security disability benefits. We “reverse [a finding of no disability] only if the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
[Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)] decision was not supported by substantial
evidence in the record as a whole or if the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard.”
Smith v. Kijakazi, 14 F.4th 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2021). We conclude that the ALJ’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence, and thus affirm.
1. Effect of Prior Adjudication.
Curtiss has applied twice for disability due to fibromyalgia, cervical
degenerative disc disease, sciatica, anxiety, and a personality disorder. She was
initially denied disability benefits in 2012. At that time, the ALJ found she had the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work (“2012 RFC”). She
filed a successive application for disability benefits, submitting new medical
evidence as support. In 2020, a new ALJ denied disability benefits and assessed an
RFC of medium work (“2020 RFC”).
Curtiss contends that the ALJ erred by failing to adopt the prior 2012 physical
RFC assessment. We disagree. An ALJ’s prior findings about a social security
applicant’s RFC, education, and work experience are entitled to some preclusive
effect as long as the adjudicator is not presented with new and material evidence on
the issue. Chavez v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 691, 693‒94 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The principles
of res judicata apply to administrative decisions, although the doctrine is applied
less rigidly to administrative proceedings than to judicial proceedings.”). An ALJ
must adopt prior findings unless there is (1) new and material evidence, or (2) a
2
change in the law, regulations or rulings affecting the finding. See Acquiescence
Ruling 97-4(9), 1997 WL 742758, *3.
Here, the ALJ properly declined to give the 2012 RFC preclusive effect.
First, nearly all the medical evidence proffered by Curtiss post-dates the 2012 RFC
finding. The ALJ relied entirely on the new medical evidence to determine the 2020
RFC, and such medical evaluations conducted after a prior adjudication necessarily
constitute new and material evidence. See Stubbs–Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d
1169, 1172–73 (9th Cir. 2008). Curtiss’s contention that the ALJ could not change
the RFC finding without evidence of medical improvement is unavailing. Evidence
of medical “improvement” is not required in order to reconsider prior findings after
a previous determination of non-disability. See id. at 1173 (requiring only “new
information not presented to the first judge” to reconsider findings). Second, the
ALJ reasonably found that the issuance of Social Security Ruling 16-3p regarding
the evaluation of subjective symptom testimony was a change in the law and
regulations impacting the RFC determination. See Social Security Ruling 16-3p,
2017 WL 5180304. On this record, the ALJ properly declined to give preclusive
effect to the prior adjudication.
2. Frequency of Medical Appointments.
The ALJ did not commit prejudicial error by failing to evaluate the frequency
of Curtiss’s medical appointments under Social Security Ruling 96-8p in evaluating
3
her RFC.1 The ALJ must assess all relevant evidence, such as the “effects of
treatment, including limitations or restrictions imposed by the mechanics of
treatment (e.g., frequency of treatment, duration, disruption to routine, side effects
of medication)” in reaching an RFC determination. Social Security Ruling 96-8p,
1996 WL 374184, at *5. Curtiss calculated her number of medical appointments
after the alleged onset disability date as 2.6 doctor visits a month. Based on that
calculation, she argues the ALJ erred by not taking into consideration how often she
would need to miss work to attend appointments. Even assuming the ALJ erred by
failing to address the frequency of treatment, any such error was harmless. See
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded on other grounds
by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a).
Fatal to her challenge here, Curtiss did not present evidence that her monthly
appointments would preclude her from working on a regular and continuing basis.
She neither testified that her appointments would result in work-related absences,
nor did medical providers opine on the issue. On the contrary, the record establishes
that Curtiss worked for approximately three months as a cashier, and there is no
evidence that the frequency of her medical appointments precluded her from regular
1
Curtiss further contends that the ALJ’s questioning of the Vocational Expert was
deficient because it failed to include the functional limitations of her frequent
medical appointments. Because we find no error in the RFC determination, her
challenge here likewise fails.
4
and continuous work. Instead, she terminated her employment by “walk[ing] off
the job” in embarrassment after accidentally running into a fixed beam. Because
Curtiss failed to demonstrate her treatment would actually interfere with her gainful
employment, we find no harmful error in the ALJ’s RFC determination. See
Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115.
AFFIRMED.
5