Albright v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
3:16-cv-00436
D. Or.Jun 23, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Klayton V. Albright filed for SSI on Jan 17, 2012 (amended onset Sept 4, 2009), claiming ADHD, learning disorder, mood and social deficits; he has a high‑school diploma, some college, and limited brief work history.
- ALJ found severe impairments: ADHD and learning disorder; not presumptively disabling; RFC limited to simple routine tasks (SVP 1–2), 4th‑grade reading, occasional public contact.
- ALJ relied heavily on nonexamining testifying expert (Dr. Weiss) and CDIU employer report to discount treating (Dr. Blome) and examining (Dr. Stoltzfus) opinions that showed marked social, concentration, and supervisory needs.
- After ALJ denial, additional neuropsychological testing (Dr. Freed) was submitted to the Appeals Council; Dr. Freed diagnosed Autism Spectrum Disorder and opined moderate limitations, including up to ~20% off‑task time.
- District court held the ALJ erred in discounting the treating and examining opinions (and in crediting Dr. Weiss) because the ALJ relied on selective/readily disputable evidence (brief/uncertain work attempts and a CDIU report) and failed to give specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.
- Court found the erroneously rejected opinions, when credited, would compel a finding of disability and remanded for immediate calculation and payment of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating physician (Dr. Blome) | ALJ failed to give specific and legitimate reasons to discount Dr. Blome's opinion that Albright is unemployable and needs extra supervision | Commissioner relied on Dr. Weiss and a CDIU employer report to contradict Dr. Blome | Court: ALJ erred; reasons (cherry‑picked employer report and brief work) not supported by substantial evidence; Dr. Blome credited |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed examining psychologist (Dr. Stoltzfus) | ALJ improperly discounted Stoltzfus's testing‑based opinion that claimant needs highly structured, hands‑on work and patient employer | Commissioner argued any error harmless because one VE job is consistent with a "highly structured" limitation | Court: ALJ erred; Stoltzfus's objective testing supports restrictions and errors were harmful (RFC/VE did not capture all limits) |
| Whether ALJ permissibly credited nonexamining testifying expert (Dr. Weiss) over treating/examining opinions | Weiss's paper review and reliance on brief work attempt insufficient to rebut treating/examining opinions | Commissioner: Weiss is a testifying medical expert whose opinion is consistent with record and supports RFC | Court: ALJ erred giving Weiss great weight; improvement not shown and brief/unsustained work is not substantial evidence of ability to sustain employment |
| Remedy — remand for further proceedings vs. benefits | Plaintiff: record complete and improperly discredited opinions should be credited; award benefits | Commissioner: case should be remanded for further proceedings | Court: Prerequisites for benefits remand met; remanded for immediate calculation and payment of benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (Sup. Ct. 1987) (sets out five‑step sequential evaluation for disability claims)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (standards for evaluating medical opinions and when to credit evidence as true)
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may not cherry‑pick evidence and must give specific and legitimate reasons to reject opinions)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (treating‑physician rule and when controlling weight is required)
- Morgan v. Commissioner Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (when nonexamining opinion can constitute substantial evidence)
- Treichler v. Commissioner Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (standards for remanding for benefits vs. further proceedings)
- Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2014) (prerequisites for benefits remand)
- Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ legal‑error review and credit‑as‑true framework)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard for rejecting uncontradicted treating opinions)
- Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (how an ALJ can support crediting a nonexamining opinion through detailed record discussion)