Court Opinion

ID: 9515862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:06:56.350353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:02.825460
License: Public Domain

IKUTA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The ALJ accorded substantial weight to the report of Wayne S. Rhodes, but mistakenly referred to Rhodes as a physician. In deciding whether this mistake was harmless, we must “ ‘apply the same kind of harmless-error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases.’ ” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1118 (9th Cir.2012) (quoting Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 406, 129 S.Ct. 1696, 173 L.Ed.2d 532 (2009)). Thus, an ALJ’s errors are harmless “if they are inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.” Id. at 1121 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the ALJ’s mistake in referring to Rhodes as a physician was inconsequential because Rhodes’s report was affirmed “as written” by a physician, Dr. Robert Hoskins, who reviewed the same information as Rhodes did.
Because Dr. Hoskins affirmed the Rhodes report “as written” the report served as Dr. Hoskins’s opinion and findings. Accordingly, the ALJ was required to consider the report. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i) (“[Administrative law judges must consider findings and other opinions of State agency medical and psychological consultants.... ”). Although the ALJ mistakenly attributed the report’s opinions and findings to a “Dr. Rhodes,” nothing in the record suggests that the ALJ would have given any less weight to the identical opinions and findings of Dr. Hoskins regarding the same medical evidence.
The majority asserts that internal agency guidance prohibited the ALJ from considering the report of a Single Decision Maker like Rhodes. Maj. Op. at 794-95. But that guidance is not relevant here, because the findings and opinions in this case were affirmed and adopted by a physician, and thus constitute medical source evidence that the ALJ was required to consider. See § 404.1527(e)(2)(i). Moreover, internal agency guidance is not binding on this court or on ALJs. Lockwood v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F.3d 1068, 1072-73 (9th Cir.2010).
Because the ALJ’s error was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination, I respectfully dissent.