Emily Attmore v. Carolyn Colvin

Good Law
827 F.3d 872·2016 WL 3563596·2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12049
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 30, 201613-36048California3,190 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fisher, J.

OPINIOÑ

A Social Security disability benefits claimant is no longer entitled to benefits when substantial evidence demonstrates (1) “there has been any medical improvement in the [claimant’s] impairment” and (2) the claimant “is now able to engage in substantial gainful activity.” 42 U-S.C. § 423(f)(1). To determine whether there has been medical improvement, an administrative law judge (ALJ) must “compare the current medical severity” of the claimant’s impairment to the medical severity of the impairment “at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision that [the claimant] w[as] disabled or continued to be disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594 (b)(7). This appeal addresses the question of how an ALJ should determine whether medical improvement has occurred in so-called “closed period” cases — ie., where the ALJ finds in a single decision that the claimant was disabled for a closed period of time but has since medically improved.

We conclude that in closed period cases an ALJ should compare the medical evidence used to determine that the claimant was disabled with the medical evidence existing at the time of asserted medical improvement. Although the ALJ in this case made the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.