Adrian Burrell v. Carolyn W. Colvin
775 F.3d 1133
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Adrian Burrell applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging debilitating headaches and neck/back problems (including a cervical-area tumor and post-surgical decline), with onset in 2007.
- ALJ found severe impairments (chronic neck/low back pain, left-hand grip impairment, chronic headaches) but assessed a RFC for medium work with restrictions, rejected claimant testimony and treating physician Dr. Riley’s opinion, and denied benefits based on past work.
- Appeals Council denied review after claimant submitted additional medical records; the district court affirmed the denial and claimant appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the full administrative record (including evidence submitted to the Appeals Council) and applied the standards requiring specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject testimony and specific and legitimate reasons to reject a contradicted treating opinion.
- The Ninth Circuit held the ALJ’s credibility finding and rejection of Dr. Riley’s opinion were not supported by substantial evidence or legally sufficient reasons, but declined to order immediate benefits, remanding for further proceedings because the record raised serious doubt about disability.
Issues
| Issue | Burrell’s Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly discredited claimant’s symptom testimony | ALJ lacked specific, clear, and convincing reasons; medical record and PT notes support testimony | ALJ relied on inconsistencies in daily activities, treatment gaps, and possible secondary gain | Rejected ALJ credibility finding; reasons given were not specific or supported by the record |
| Whether ALJ properly rejected treating physician Dr. Riley’s opinion | Dr. Riley’s opinion is supported by treatment notes and claimant’s testimony and should be credited | Other examiners contradicted Dr. Riley; forms were conclusory and relied on claimant reports | Rejected ALJ’s reasons as not specific and legitimate; Dr. Riley’s opinion was improperly discounted |
| Standard for reviewing ALJ rejection of testimony and treating opinions | Apply specific, clear, and convincing standard for testimony; specific and legitimate for treating opinions | Government argued Bunnell narrows requirement (no clear-and-convincing) | Court reaffirmed specific, clear, and convincing standard for testimony and specific and legitimate for treating opinions |
| Proper remedy when ALJ errs — credit-as-true vs. remand for further proceedings | Erroneous rejection entitles claimant to relief and potentially benefits if prerequisites met | Commissioner urged remand for further proceedings; opposed automatic benefits | Remand ordered for further proceedings on an open record; court found serious doubt about disability, so did not direct immediate benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (framework for credit-as-true rule and when to remand for benefits vs. further proceedings)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (requirement that ALJ provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject claimant testimony)
- Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (evidence considered by Appeals Council becomes part of the administrative record)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard: ALJ must give specific and legitimate reasons to reject contradicted treating physician opinions)
- Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991) (ALJ must state specific reasons when rejecting pain testimony; discussed in relation to corroboration requirement)