The Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Webber v. Colvin on December 24, 2024. This case was all about rebutting the Ninth Circuit’s Chavez presumption. It’s a nuanced one, so let’s get into it.
Chavez explains that for a claimant to “overcome the presumption of continuing nondisability arising from the first administrative law judge’s findings of nondisability,” the claimant “must prove ‘changed circumstances’ indicating a greater disability.”
Fun right? Gets better.
If the presumption is rebutted, the ALJ must adopt specific findings from the previous decision unless there is new and material evidence relating to such a finding or a change in law.
Okay.
So now, let’s get into Webber v. Colvin. Webber, whose first application was denied through May 2017, faced another denial on his second application through December 2017. To succeed, Webber needed to overcome the Chavez presumption by showing evidence of a greater disability since the prior decision.
Here, the ALJ held that the new evidence did not substantiate such a change, and the court affirmed the ALJ’s Decision, with two key findings:
1. The ALJ did not err in evaluating Webber’s medical evidence.
Unsupported Diagnoses: Dr. Reuben Grothaus’ diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis was rejected due to “insufficient objective findings for this condition.”
Timing Matters: Timothy Salvos’ opinion was discounted because it relied on Dr. Grothaus’ unsupported diagnosis and included evidence “well after the relevant period.”
Treatment Notes Excluded: Si Feng’s notes did not indicate Webber was “incapable of working except under the recommended conditions.”
2. The ALJ provided “specific, clear, and convincing reasons” to reject Webber’s subjective statements.
The ALJ pointed to several inconsistencies in the record that contradicted his statements. That was enough.
🌟 What Stood Out to me tho, was the discussion about improvement. Webber's improvement after surgery for neurogenic claudication, later disrupted by a vehicle collision, was central to the court’s decision:
“The ALJ concluded that this surgery improved, or eliminated, Webber’s allegedly severe neurogenic claudication. Webber also reported to his provider that the surgery improved his symptoms, but he began to suffer more pain after a vehicle collision.”
This case is a reminder of the precision required in presenting evidence and challenging presumptions in Social Security appeals.
What strategies have you found effective in overcoming similar hurdles?
Comments