Andrew Terrey v. Nancy Berryhill
696 F. App'x 831
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Andrew Terrey appealed the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act; Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial.
- The ALJ discounted Terrey’s subjective symptom testimony in part because he had worked part-time at Blockbuster during the period of alleged disability, had been laid off for recession-related reasons, and gave inconsistent descriptions of workplace problems.
- Medical evidence included assessments from Dr. Raun Melmed (moderately severe and mild limitations; supervision required), Dr. Sristi Nath (can maintain attention and concentration for brief periods), and Dr. Larry Waldman (moderately limited in maintaining attention for extended periods but provided no narrative RFC restrictions).
- The ALJ translated medical findings into an RFC limiting Terrey to simple, unskilled work with supervisor checks two to three times daily and relied on a vocational expert for step-five findings.
- Terrey challenged the ALJ’s rejection of his symptom testimony, the RFC formulation (arguing failure to account for concentration/pace limitations), and the adequacy of the hypothetical to the vocational expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ’s rejection of subjective symptom testimony | ALJ improperly discounted credibility without clear, convincing reasons | ALJ gave specific reasons tied to prior work, layoff explanation, and inconsistent statements | Affirmed — ALJ gave specific, supported reasons to discount testimony |
| RFC adequacy re: Dr. Melmed’s limitations | RFC failed to capture concentration/pace limits noted by Dr. Melmed | RFC incorporated Dr. Melmed’s limits as simple/unskilled work with supervision | Affirmed — RFC adequately translated Dr. Melmed’s check-box ratings into concrete restrictions |
| Conflict between Dr. Nath’s opinion and RFC | Dr. Nath’s “brief periods” limitation undermines RFC for unskilled work (POMS requires 2‑hour segments) | POMS requirement is 2‑hour segments and notes concentration not critical; Dr. Nath’s finding is consistent | Affirmed — Dr. Nath’s opinion does not contradict RFC for unskilled work |
| Dr. Waldman’s moderate limitation and ALJ’s hypothetical | Waldman’s moderate limitation in extended attention should have been included in RFC/hypothetical | Waldman did not include attention/concentration limits in his narrative RFC as required by POMS | Affirmed — ALJ permissibly omitted non-narrated limits; hypothetical included all credible, supported limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must provide specific, clear and convincing reasons to reject claimant’s symptom testimony absent malingering)
- Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ’s RFC can capture concentration/pace limits when consistent with medical testimony)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error principles apply in Social Security cases)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may rely on vocational expert where hypothetical includes all credible, supported limitations)