Evonne Stout v. Kilolo Kijakazi ( 2022 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 14 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EVONNE STOUT, No. 20-36013
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01994-MLP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Michelle L. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 9, 2022**
Seattle, Washington
Before: BYBEE, BEA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Evonne Stout appeals the decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration (SSA) denying her applications for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income for a period beginning on December 31,
*
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).
2014. The ALJ concluded that, based on the admitted evidence, Stout was not
disabled and denied her applications for benefits, and the district court affirmed.
We affirm.
1. SSA regulations state that, in order for written evidence to be
considered, the claimant must submit or inform the ALJ about the evidence no later
than five business days before the hearing. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.935(a), 416.1435(a).
If the claimant fails to comply, the ALJ may decline to consider the evidence,
subject to certain exceptions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.935(b), 416.1435(b). Stout
argues that the ALJ abused his discretion when he admitted her late-submitted
medical records from St. Joseph Hospital, but refused to admit late-submitted
medical source statements from a treating source located at a different facility.
However, Stout’s late-submitted medical records were submitted in compliance
with SSA regulations, because her counsel sent a letter to the ALJ six days before
the hearing informing the ALJ about the outstanding evidence. In contrast, Stout
failed to timely inform the ALJ about her outstanding medical source statements
despite requesting the statements months before her hearing. It is not an abuse of
discretion for the ALJ to find good cause to admit evidence that was submitted
consistent with SSA regulations and similarly refuse to consider evidence that was
submitted in violation of those regulations.
2
2. Stout also argues that the ALJ erred by rejecting or ignoring “every
other medical opinion available to him,” thus rendering the evidence inadequate to
support his conclusions. However, the ALJ did not fully reject any of the medical
opinions available to him—he gave partial weight to an examining doctor who did
not define “poor or fair” ability to perform certain tasks,1 partial weight to two
reviewing doctors to the extent their assessments were consistent with more recent
evidence, and great weight to a reviewing doctor whose assessment was consistent
with the medical evidence. To the extent that Stout argues that the record was
inadequate to support the ALJ’s conclusions, she does not point to a valid gap or
inadequacy—the record contains over four years of Stout’s medical records, with
notes from her care providers describing her mental and physical function over
time and assessments of her treatment plans. See Ford, 950 F.3d at 1156;
Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 875 (9th Cir. 2017). Further, these records
support the ALJ’s conclusions. The ALJ pointed to instances in which Stout
reported that her impairments improved with treatment and notes from care
1
Stout argues that the ALJ had a duty to contact the examining doctor when
he determined that the doctor’s descriptions were inadequate. We previously
rejected a similar argument because an ALJ has no such duty when the record is
adequate, Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1156 (9th Cir. 2020), so Stout’s argument
is unavailing.
3
providers consistent with the ALJ’s assessment of her residual functioning
capacity.
AFFIRMED.
4