Court Opinion

ID: 9889537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-10 17:01:58.910895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:41.930309
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 10 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD M. HARDIN,                               No.    22-16517

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-08060-DGC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 13, 2023**
                                Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GOULD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Ronald Hardin appeals from the judgment of the district court affirming the

final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Hardin’s application

for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Hardin

      *
             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).
contends that the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) determination by the

Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) is not supported by substantial evidence

because the ALJ: (1) failed to develop the record; and (2) improperly relied upon

outdated medical opinions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

      1.      The ALJ did not err by declining to order an updated expert

examination of Hardin after his back surgeries. “An ALJ’s duty to develop the

record further is triggered only when there is ambiguous evidence or when the

record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence.” Mayes v.

Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th Cir. 2001).

      a. The record here contains the treating physicians’ notes about each of

           Hardin’s surgeries. It is undisputed that Hardin’s first surgery resulted in

           complications. The second surgery—intended to correct those

           complications—is not alleged to have produced any significant negative

           results. State agency medical consultant Dr. F. Kalmar reviewed both of

           these surgeries.

      b. There is no indication that Hardin’s third and final surgery—the only one

           not reviewed by an expert—produced any negative effects. Although

           Hardin claims that an “additional impairment” arose at some time after

           the third surgery, his support for this statement is merely a list of his

                                            2
           medical conditions throughout the relevant period. For example, Hardin

           describes his “limited functional range of motion”—something that was

           noted by two examining physicians before Hardin’s surgeries. He urges

           that he had “three cervical surgeries” and “applications of medical branch

           blocks,” but there is no reason to presume that these procedures intended

           to correct his condition instead worsened it. Because Hardin has not

           pointed to any material change in his condition after the medical experts’

           examinations, the ALJ was not obligated to further develop the record.

      2.      The ALJ did not improperly rely on outdated medical opinions. An

expert’s opinion is not automatically rendered unreliable if it does not account for

every procedure that a claimant has undergone before the date of his hearing.

Hardin acknowledges this but contends that the Ninth Circuit has at times been

skeptical about an ALJ’s reliance on “stale medical opinions that do not reflect a

subsequent deterioration of a claimant’s condition.” Brand v. Kijakazi, 575 F.

Supp. 3d 1265, 1269 (D. Nev. 2021).

      a. The ALJ specifically considered whether Hardin’s third surgery rendered

           the opinion evidence in the record outdated and presented “specific, clear

           and convincing reasons” why it did not. Smith v. Kijakazi, 14 F.4th 1108,

           1112 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014-15

           (9th Cir. 2014)). The ALJ noted that “[the] [e]xamination following the

                                          3
           procedure was unremarkable and [Hardin] was discharged in good

           condition with no restrictions, only ‘activity as tolerated’ . . . . There is no

           evidence of complications following the procedure.”

      b. We reject Hardin’s contention that the ALJ’s assessment of the third

           surgery represents an improper lay assessment of medical evidence.

           “Inherent in th[e] standard [for evaluation of medical evidence] is a

           presumption that ALJs are, at some level, capable of independently

           reviewing and forming conclusions about medical evidence.” Farlow v.

           Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 485, 488 (9th Cir. 2022). The treatment notes

           following Hardin’s third surgery were unambiguous and did not require

           expert interpretation.

      3.      The ALJ reasonably determined that Hardin’s condition had not

materially changed after his examination by the medical experts. The ALJ gave

appropriate weight to the three expert reports, all of which were consistent with an

RFC of medium work. Together with other evidence of Hardin’s daily activities

and treatment, the ALJ supported his RFC determination with substantial evidence.

The district court did not err.

      AFFIRMED.

                                             4