Court Opinion

ID: 9496160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:19:05.504187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:23.639929
License: Public Domain

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Examination of the phraseology in the majority opinion exposes the tenuous basis upon which the majority gifts the claimant, Carmen Celaya, with a disability she never even claimed.
*1185Our charge is to examine the record of proceedings and determine whether substantial evidence supports the ruling of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir.2002). The majority opinion strays from that charge.
A careful reading of the majority’s opinion reveals its failure to remain faithful to the confines of appellate review. The majority reveals its willingness to disregard the administrative record by stating that the claimant “asserts, at least implicitly, obesity.” Majority opinion at 1179. Yet search the record as one might, no assertion of obesity by the claimant, implicit or otherwise, may be found. The majority also states as a fact that “[wjith a Body Mass Index of at least over 44, [Celaya] well exceeded the criterion level of 40 that would categorize her as ‘extremely obese,’ the highest category used by the SSA.” Majority opinion at 1179. This referenced Body Mass Index is nowhere reflected in the record. Rather than relying on the record in this case, the majority opinion cites to an estimated height for Celaya of 53" as opposed to a measured height of 57". Majority opinion at 1179. The majority opinion also notes that Celaya’s weight fluctuated between “205 and 213 pounds.” Id. This notation is an inherent contradiction of the majority’s implicit finding that Celaya’s judicially diagnosed “obesity” was of the requisite one-year duration to constitute a disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505, 416.905 (2001).
The majority opinion acknowledges that Celaya did not meet the listing criterion for obesity. Nevertheless, the majority insists that the ALJ should have conducted a “multiple impairments analysis.” Majority opinion at 1183. But what multiple impairments were presented for analysis in this case? Celaya’s hypertension and diabetes were admittedly under control. Understandably, an impairment that is under control cannot support a finding of disability. See Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir.1982) (upholding the ALJ’s finding of no disability where the impairments were stabilized).
Not surprisingly, the majority cites no case authority to support its premise that non-disabling impairments plus a non-qualifying disability equal eligibility for benefits. The reason is obvious. No such authority exists. While the ALJ has an obligation to develop the administrative record, he is not required to conjure up a disability where there is none.
In Sampson v. Chater, 103 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir.1996), we reversed a Social Security disability determination for failure of the ALJ to “develop the record fully and fairly.” (citations omitted). However, in Sampson, there was never a question regarding the nature of the claimant’s asserted impairments: multiple sclerosis with impaired vision, chronic lumbar strain and hyperuricemia. Id. at 921. There was absolutely no implication in Sampson that the ALJ’s duty to develop the record extended to undiagnosed or stabilized impairments.
The majority predicates the ALJ’s responsibility to develop the record upon the following factoids:
1. Obesity “was raised implicitly in Celaya’s report of symptoms[;]”
2. “Celaya’s obesity was at least close to the listing criterion[;]” (emphasis added).
3. “[I]n light of Celaya’s pro se status, the ALJ’s observation of Celaya and the information on the record should have alerted him to the need to develop the record in respect to her obesity.” (emphasis added).
(Majority opinion at 1182-1183).
The majority would require the ALJ to survey the reported symptoms for “implic*1186itly raised” disabilities that are “at least close” to the listing criteria, while remaining alert to the existence of a disability that no medical provider ever detected. This approach would transform Social Security administrative hearings into seance-like proceedings where the ALJ must divine implicit impairments, diagnose disabilities lying close to the listing criterion and detect any aura compelling further development of the record. Nothing in our precedent condones such wholesale disregard of the ALJ’s adjudicatory role.
The majority seeks to bolster its criticism of the ALJ’s conclusion by describing Celaya as “an illiterate, unrepresented claimant who very likely never knew that she could assert obesity as a partial basis for her disability.” Majority opinion at 1183 (emphasis in the original). However, that observation is of no assistance to the majority because it raises the distinct probability that Celaya did not assert obesity as a partial basis for her disability because she was never treated for obesity or diagnosed as obese. According to the majority’s characterization of Celaya, how else would she have known to assert hypertension and diabetes as disabilities? And why would she assert obesity as a disability if no one ever informed her that she was obese? More importantly, why would the ALJ explore an obesity impairment when Celaya was never treated for obesity, never diagnosed as obese and never asserted obesity as a disability?
The end of the matter is this: the substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s finding that Celaya was not disabled. No amount of inferential leaping on the part of the majority can change the state of the evidence presented at the hearing. Examination of that evidence supports the ALJ’s ruling, and the ALJ had no obligation to manufacture a disability to bolster Celaya’s claim. If there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s ruling, we must affirm. See Thomas, 278 F.3d at 954. And the ALJ had no duty to develop the record in the absence of some basic evidence proffered by the claimant to support her obesity claim. See Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir.1995) (placing the burden of production on the claimant). I simply cannot agree that the majority’s analysis tracks our deferential standard of review. See Sample, 694 F.2d at 642(lim-iting appellate review to determining whether a reasonable mind could accept the ALJ’s conclusion). Accordingly, I would AFFIRM the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security.