Page 1
Ninth Circuit Finds Psychologist’s Report Faulty
Says It Fails to Discuss Present Impact on Social Security Claimant of Having Watched, at Age Four, As Her Father Slayed Her Mother
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated an administrative law judge’s determination that a woman suffers only non-severe mental impairments that do not qualify her for Social Security disability payments, faulting the decision for being based on the report of a clinical psychologist who failed to take into account the claimant having witnessed, at age four, her father murdering her mother by strangling her.
A three-judge panel on Tuesday remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings.
Administrative Law Judge Arthur Zeidman of the Social Security Administration’s Office of Disability Adjudication and Review in Oakland on Sept. 12, 2017, denied the application of Joyce Mitchell, who claims incapacitation based on post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and anxiety. Zeidman acted in accordance with the findings of psychologist Aparna Dixit-Brunet.
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District of California on Oct. 28, 2020 granted summary judgment in favor of the commissioner of Social Security, thus upholding Zeidman’s decision. She acknowledged Mitchell’s contention that the psychologist’s report “makes no mention of Plaintiff’s childhood trauma which she claims is the cause of her PTSD and anxiety disorders,” but did not discuss the matter further, instead finding that substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits.
Reviewing Zeitman’s decision de novo, a three-judge panel—comprised of Circuit Judge Daniel P. Collins, Senior Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould, and District Court Judge David A. Ezra of the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation—said in a memorandum opinion:
“Instead of considering evidence of Appellant’s childhood trauma and resulting limitations, the ALJ relied almost exclusively on Dr. Apama Dixit’s consultative examination report from which Appellant’s childhood trauma is entirely absent.
“…Because the ALJ relied on Dr. Dixit’s opinion—which was based on a one-time examination of Appellant and failed to mention or consider Appellant’s traumatic history or PTSD—the Court concludes that the ALJ’s holding as to Appellant’s mental impairments is not supported by substantial evidence.”
The case is Mitchell v. Kijakazi, 20-17381.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company