Stephanie Garcia v. Comm. of Social Security

Stephanie Garcia appeals from the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s (the “Commissioner”) denial of benefits on the basis that she was not intellectually disabled. Garcia argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) who determined that she was not disabled had a duty to develop the record because that record did not include a complete set of valid IQ scores. We agree that the ALJ had a duty to order further IQ testing, and we further conclude that the ALJ’s failure to do so was an error that cannot be considered harmless. We therefore reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings.

I

As a minor, Stephanie Garcia received social security benefits because of her intellectual disability. After she reached the age of 18 in 2007, the Social Security Administration (SSA or the “Administration”) concluded that she no longer qualified as disabled and was therefore not entitled to further benefits. Garcia sought review by an ALJ, before whom she had a hearing on April 8, 2010. At the time of her hearing, Garcia lived with her mother and two siblings, as well as her own disabled daughter. Although she had learned some skills…

The panel majority, eager to reprimand the Commissioner of Social Security for what it deems to be inexcusably sloppy practices, disregards — I suggest, respectfully — the deference we owe under law to the agency’s determinations. Rather than observing the standard for harmless error that our precedents have previously prescribed, the majority has erroneously presumed that the Commissioner’s ostensible error has prejudiced Stephanie Garcia, the claimant in this case. I respectfully dissent from this regrettable exaggeration of our Court’s properly limited role in the adjudication of Social Security disability benefits claims.

I

Congress has carefully prescribed a minimal role for the Federal courts in adjudicating claims of disability under the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). Accordingly, we have only limited authority to nullify the decisions of the agency and its administrative law judges with which we disagree. As the majority opinion correctly notes, we may not disturb an ALJ’s denial of benefits unless “it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006). Legal error alone,…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHANIE GARCIA, No. 12-15686 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 1:10-cv-01997-

JLT

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 14, 2014—San Francisco, California

Filed September 23, 2014

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, and Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Murguia; Dissent by Judge O’Scannlain GARCIA V. COMM’S OF SOC. SEC.

SUMMARY*

Social Security

The panel reversed the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits on the basis that the claimant was not intellectually disabled.

The panel held that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) had a duty to order further IQ testing, and concluded that the ALJ’s failure to do so was error that cannot be considered harmless. The panel remanded to the district court with instructions to reverse the final decision of the…