Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Beverly Marie McColloch appealed a district court order affirming the denial of Social Security disability benefits for December 1, 2002 through June 15, 2015. The appeal came from the Western District of Washington, where Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold presided. The Ninth Circuit memorandum identifies No. 25-77 and district court No. 2:24-cv-00367-GJL, and states that the case was argued and submitted in Portland, Oregon, on July 8, 2026. Because McColloch filed her claim before March 27, 2017, the newer regulations governing consideration of medical opinions did not apply.
The court reviewed the district court's judgment de novo. It explained that a benefits denial must be set aside only if unsupported by substantial evidence or based on legal error. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. When evidence permits more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ's conclusion must be upheld. The court also reiterated that an ALJ's error does not require reversal when it was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.
The Court’s Holding
The panel first rejected McColloch's challenge to the ALJ's compliance with the district court's October 2022 remand order. That order required the ALJ to reassess all of the evidence after reconsidering Dr. Robert Crist's medical opinion. The ALJ held an administrative hearing and admitted anew all medical evidence previously considered by the agency. The court explained that the remand required a new assessment, not a different conclusion, so assessing most of the evidence as before did not violate the rule of mandate.
The court next upheld the ALJ's treatment of McColloch's subjective symptom testimony. It identified four sufficient reasons: medical evidence showed improvement in symptoms, particularly back and neck pain, between 2002 and 2015; McColloch misrepresented her treatment history on several occasions; she had long gaps in consistent treatment; and she gave conflicting medical and nonmedical explanations for leaving her job. Those reasons met the requirement that rejection of symptom testimony be supported by specific, clear, and convincing reasons. Because the lay testimony of Penny Zimmer, Brenda Perkins, and Deborah Kay McColloch was similar to McColloch's discounted complaints, the ALJ also supplied germane reasons for rejecting that testimony.
Addressing the medical opinions, the court found no reversible error. It accepted the reasoning concerning Dr. Howard Andrew Coren, held that massage practitioner Timothy Morford was not an acceptable medical source under the applicable regulation, and found any failure to discuss his opinion harmless because its relevant contents were either properly discounted subjective reports or limitations incorporated into the residual functional capacity. Any error concerning Dr. John M. Blair's opinion was harmless because the covered period fell short of the required 12 months. The court also upheld the assessments of Drs. Alexander D. Serra, Douglas Lindahl, Garrett W. Duckworth, and Keith J. Krueger, and physician assistant Mike Myers. As to Dr. Darius Ghazi, McColloch did not point to any specific error regarding the ALJ's assessment of his medical opinion. Any partial rejection of Dr. Crist's position-changing limitation was harmless because two of the three jobs identified by the vocational expert accommodated that limitation. The court therefore affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A remand requiring reassessment of the evidence does not necessarily require the ALJ to reach a different conclusion.
- The ALJ supported rejection of McColloch's symptom testimony with medical improvement, treatment-history misrepresentations, inconsistent treatment, and conflicting explanations for leaving work.
- Lay testimony that mirrored the properly discounted subjective complaints could be rejected for corresponding germane reasons.
- Several alleged errors in evaluating medical opinions were harmless because they did not affect the ultimate nondisability determination.
- The vocational expert's testimony that two identified jobs allowed occasional position changes made any error concerning Dr. Crist's opinion inconsequential.
Why It Matters
The decision applies established Ninth Circuit standards to a lengthy disability record and emphasizes the distinction between procedural error and reversible error. Even assuming particular mistakes in weighing medical opinions, the court asked whether those mistakes mattered to the final nondisability finding. The duration requirement defeated the significance of Dr. Blair's limited-period opinion, while the vocational testimony neutralized the asserted problem with Dr. Crist's position-changing restriction.
The memorandum also clarifies the practical effect of the remand instruction at issue: reconsideration required the agency to revisit the evidence, but did not predetermine a favorable outcome. Its analysis is expressly nonprecedential except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, and the disposition leaves the denial of benefits and the district court's judgment in place.