Ball v. Colvin

10 Citing cases

  1. Lichtenberg v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

    No. CV-23-00137-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Nov. 9, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    (See Doc. 10-3 at 21-24). See Ball v. Colvin, 607 Fed.Appx. 709, 709-10 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding the ALJ reasonably discounted a physician's report when it was “rendered more than two years after [the] date last insured”). The Court further notes that the ALJ somewhat discounted Dr. Gallucci's August 21, 2018, opinion in a manner which was favorable to Plaintiff.

  2. Wayne Chun Lim v. Saul

    Case No. 18-cv-07519-VKD (N.D. Cal. May. 20, 2020)   Cited 7 times

    The fact that Ms. Neville's opinion post-dated Mr. Lim's date last insured by four years is a germane reason for giving her opinion little weight, particularly where the record reflects that a state agency medical consultant provided a contradictory opinion. AR 21; Turner, 613 F.2d at 1223-24 (no error in disregarding other source opinion that was given two years after date last insured and that differed from opinions of all doctors); see also Ball v. Colvin, 607 F. App'x 709 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ reasonably concluded that treating psychiatrist's opinion was of minimal relevance where opinion was rendered more than two years after date last insured and there was no evidence that psychiatrist treated claimant prior to date last insured). Because Mr. Lim's claim was filed prior to March 27, 2017, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 applies here.

  3. Lopriore v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    Case No. 18-CV-06970-LHK (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019)

    Inconsistency with a medical source opinion or the medical record is a germane reason to discount an "other source" opinion. Cachu v. Colvin, 2015 WL 5232524, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015) (citing Ball v. Colvin, 607 Fed. App'x 709, 710 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112 (concluding that an inconsistency between an "other source" and an "acceptable medical source" was a germane reason to discount the "other source" opinion); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Inconsistency with medical evidence is one such [germane] reason."). If an "other source" opinion utilizes a "standardized, check-the-box form" without "supporting reasoning or clinical findings," that is another germane reason to afford less weight to an "other source" opinion.

  4. Nunes v. Saul

    No. 2:17-cv-2683-EFB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    And, at the times relevant to plaintiff's disability claims, a chiropractor was considered an "other source." See, e.g., Ball v. Colvin, 607 F. App'x 709, 710 (9th Cir. 2015). The question, then, is whether the ALJ provided germane reasons for discounting Dr. Hanley's opinions.

  5. Billings v. Saul

    No. 2:18-cv-0935 DB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2019)

    Chaudhry, 688 F.3d at 671 (quotation omitted). In this regard, the reasons provided by the ALJ for discounting the other source statement were germane. See Samuels v. Colvin, 658 Fed. Appx. 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2016) (lack of support from "objective medical evidence" is a germane reason); Ball v. Colvin, 607 Fed. Appx. 709, 710 (9th Cir. 2015) (inconsistency with "contemporaneous medical evidence" is a germane reason). Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim.

  6. Glaser v. Berryhill

    No. 2:16-cv-2317 DB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2018)

    In this regard, the reasons provided by the ALJ for discounting the other source statement were certainly germane. See Samuels v. Colvin, 658 Fed. Appx. 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2016) (lack of support from "objective medical evidence" is a germane reason); Ball v. Colvin, 607 Fed. Appx. 709, 710 (9th Cir. 2015) (inconsistency with "contemporaneous medical evidence" is a germane reason). Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim.

  7. Vieira v. Berryhill

    No. 2:15-cv-1685 DB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Inconsistency with medical evidence is a germane reason to afford less weight to an "other source" opinion. See Ball v. Colvin, 607 Fed. Appx. 709, 710 (9th Cir. 2015) (inconsistency with "contemporaneous medical evidence" is a germane reason). Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred with respect to the August 24, 2010 opinion of Barbara Nolet, a Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner. (Pl.'s MSJ (ECF No. 17) at 21-22.)

  8. Comminey v. Colvin

    Case No. 1:15-cv-00106-SMS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2016)

    Second, aside from Plaintiff's and his ex-wife's testimony, nowhere in the record is there objective evidence that Plaintiff struggled to complete a task. See, e.g., Ball v. Colvin, 607 F. App'x 709, 710 (9th Cir. 2015) (concluding that germane reasons include a finding that chiropractor's "assessments were inconsistent with contemporaneous medical evidence"). Finally, the ALJ is correct in stating that because Mr. Napier is not an acceptable medical source, his opinion is not in entitled to the same weight as other medical source opinions.

  9. Chambers v. Colvin

    Civil No. 1:15-cv-00305-CL (D. Or. Mar. 17, 2016)

    SSR 06-03p at *3-5. As such, an ALJ does not err per se by according a source no weight. See, e.g., Ball v. Colvin, 607 Fed.Appx. 709 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ did not err by according no weight to inconsistent opinions of treating chiropractor). SSR 06-03p identifies the following factors in weighing the opinions of "other sources": (1) length and frequency of treatment by source; (2) consistency with other evidence; (3) degree of evidentiary support for opinion; (4) how well the source's opinion is explained; (5) whether the source's expertise is related to a claimant's impairment; and (6) any other factors that tend to support or refute the opinion.

  10. Cachu v. Colvin

    No. 2:14-cv-1279 DAD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2015)   Cited 3 times

    Inconsistency with a medical source opinion is a germane reason to afford less weight to an "other source" opinion. See Ball v. Colvin, 607 Fed. Appx. 709, 710 (9th Cir. 2015) (inconsistency with "contemporaneous medical evidence" is a germane reason); Hubble v. Astrue, 467 Fed. Appx. 675, 677 (9th Cir. 2012) ("The ALJ is entitled to give greater weight to opinions from 'acceptable medical sources' . . . and his conclusion that the other sources were more credible was not unreasonable.").See fn. 3, above.