Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Chance Kuno Lee Stewart, represented by his former guardian Naomi Maley, applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) child disability benefits. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the application, finding that Stewart’s impairments did not meet, medically equal, or functionally equal a listed impairment under the Social Security regulations. The ALJ determined Stewart had a marked limitation in concentrating, persisting, and maintaining pace, but only moderate limitations in the other three paragraph B criteria: understanding and remembering information, interacting with others, and adapting and managing himself. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo presiding, affirmed the denial. Stewart and Maley appealed to the Ninth Circuit, challenging the ALJ’s evaluation of medical opinions, lay witness testimony, and Stewart’s symptom testimony, as well as the ultimate determination that his impairments did not meet or equal a listing.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. The panel held that the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for the weight assigned to the medical opinions of Drs. Weiss, Fitterer, and Anderson. The ALJ properly discounted teacher questionnaire assessments of marked limitations in domains other than attending and completing tasks because they were contradicted by medical evidence, evidence of successful social interactions, and hearing testimony. The ALJ’s assessment of Stewart’s symptom testimony was permissible, as any testimony supporting marked limitations was inconsistent with the medical record. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings that Stewart had no more than moderate limitations in three paragraph B criteria and less-than-marked limitations in the corresponding functional domains of acquiring and using information, interacting and relating with others, and caring for himself. Therefore, Stewart’s impairments did not meet, medically equal, or functionally equal a listing.
Key Takeaways
- An ALJ may rely on a consultative examiner’s report even if it contains a clerical error referencing another child’s teacher report, provided the error does not affect the examination results at issue.
- An ALJ may give greater weight to a medical opinion that is consistent with the record as a whole—including academic performance, mental status exams, and psychological testing—over a treating source’s opinion based primarily on teacher questionnaires.
- Teacher lay opinions may be discounted when assessments of marked limitations in specific domains are contradicted by other record evidence, such as medical findings and the claimant’s reported activities.
- A claimant’s symptom testimony supporting a higher degree of limitation may be rejected as inconsistent with the medical evidence, and the same reasons apply to corroborating lay witness testimony.
- Substantial evidence supports a finding of ‘less than marked’ limitations in functional domains where the record shows regular curriculum placement with accommodations, passing grades, and age-appropriate social activities such as sports.
Why It Matters
This memorandum disposition reinforces the deference afforded to ALJs in weighing conflicting medical and lay evidence in child SSI cases. It clarifies that clerical errors in consultative examination reports do not automatically invalidate the examiner’s findings if the error is unrelated to the claimant’s actual evaluation. The decision illustrates the application of the ‘whole record’ standard in functional equivalence analyses, demonstrating that academic success with accommodations and participation in extracurricular activities can constitute substantial evidence of less-than-marked limitations in domains such as acquiring and using information and interacting with others. While non-precedential, the ruling provides a practical example of how the Ninth Circuit reviews the ‘specific and legitimate reasons’ and ‘germane reasons’ standards for discounting medical and lay opinions, respectively. The memorandum arose from Oregon but remains within Ninth Circuit coverage. It is unpublished and fact-specific. The panel did not reweigh the evidence; it asked whether a reasonable mind could accept the record as adequate. Claimants challenging an ALJ’s treatment of school and medical evidence therefore must identify legal error or a genuine evidentiary gap, not merely a competing interpretation.