Ninth Circuit Reverses ALJ for Unexplained CPP Change

The Ninth Circuit has once again clarified an essential principle in disability law: Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) must explain their changes in findings.

In Gageby v. Dudek, the Court reversed and remanded after an ALJ downgraded a claimant’s concentration, persistence, and pace (CPP) rating without any explanation.

Case Background: What Happened

• The ALJ initially found moderate CPP limitations.

• After the district court remanded the case to consider Dr. Campion’s opinion, the ALJ changed that rating to mild — but offered no explanation for the change.

• The Ninth Circuit noted that the ALJ’s reasoning was “nearly identical” in both decisions, meaning there was no new justification for the altered finding.

  
  

Key Legal Principle

An ALJ must explain any change in findings.

The Ninth Circuit emphasized that when an agency changes its position, it must provide a reasoned analysis. Repeating earlier rationale without addressing the change is legal error.

Impact on Dr. Campion’s Medical Opinion

This unexplained downgrade had ripple effects:

• Dr. Campion’s opinion clearly stated moderate CPP limitations.

• On remand, the ALJ gave his opinion minimal weight, claiming those limitations weren’t supported by the record.

• But — the same ALJ had previously found the record did support moderate limits.

  
  

The Ninth Circuit called this circular reasoning. The ALJ effectively discounted the doctor’s opinion based on her own unexplained change, not actual evidence.

Why the Error Was Harmful

The Court held the error was not harmless because:

• Moderate CPP limitations can directly affect the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) — even in mental RFC assessments.

• A shift from moderate to mild could change the disability outcome.

  
  

Because the ALJ’s unexplained change had the potential to alter the final determination, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case.

Practical Tips for Practitioners

1. Watch for Unexplained Shifts on Remand

If an ALJ changes a prior finding, they must justify the change.

• If no explanation is given, highlight this in your briefs or appeals.

  
  

2. Preserve Inconsistent-Reasoning Arguments

When an ALJ uses the same rationale but reaches a different result, emphasize that contradiction.

3. Compare Before and After Remand Decisions

• Note whether the record has changed.

• If not, question why the conclusion did.

  
  

4. Scrutinize Medical Opinions Against the Record

If a medical source finds moderate limits but the ALJ later claims otherwise, point out the inconsistency.Remember 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4): medical opinions must align with the entire record, not selective portions.

Key Takeaway

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Gageby v. Dudek is a powerful reminder:

When the Agency changes course, it must explain why — or risk reversal.

This ruling strengthens claimants’ ability to challenge unexplained, inconsistent ALJ decisions, keeping the process fair and accountable.

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.