Case Citator › Trevizo v. Berryhill

Trevizo v. Berryhill

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
871 F.3d 664
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
40 of 40
Citing cases (total)
40
Treatment dates
2022
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Trevizo v. Berryhill's treating physician standard was superseded for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. All 40 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

In Woods v. Kijakazi, the Ninth Circuit held that the 2017 Social Security regulations displaced its former medical opinion hierarchy. Silva v. Commissioner of Social Security identifies Trevizo as a decision stating that former standard. Trevizo's analysis of symptom testimony was not displaced by this change.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

40 later cases cite Trevizo v. Berryhill; 40 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Trevizo v. Berryhill?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by later regulation

  • The Ninth Circuit held that the 2017 regulations displaced the treating physician standard Trevizo applied for newer claims.

    Woods v. Kijakazi · Ninth Circuit · filed

    As a threshold matter, we must decide whether recent changes to the Social Security Administration’s regulations displace our longstanding case law requiring an ALJ to provide “specific and legitimate” reasons for rejecting an examining doctor’s opinion. We conclude that they do. For claims subject to the new regulations, the former hierarchy of medical opinions—in which we assign presumptive weight based on the extent of the doctor’s relationship with the claimant—no longer applies.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Trevizo v. Berryhill and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace