April Agatucci v. Nancy Berryhill, 15-35344

Background

Agatucci appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits under Titles II and XVI after an ALJ found her capable of medium exertional work and denied benefits; the district court affirmed and Agatucci appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The ALJ gave substantial weight to non-treating/examining opinions (state agency physician Dr. Eder and examining psychologist Dr. Trueblood) and little weight to treating physician Dr. Nelson’s January 2012 opinion that she could not sustain sedentary or light work.
The ALJ relied on medical records from 2007–2012 showing mostly normal functional findings (e.g., gait, range of motion) that conflicted with Dr. Nelson’s extreme restriction.
The ALJ discounted portions of Agatucci’s subjective symptom testimony, citing inconsistencies with medical evidence, daily activities, conservative treatment, and failure to follow or seek recommended mental-health treatment.
Lay testimony from Agatucci’s husband was discounted in part because it conflicted with the medical record; any errors in rejecting two other grounds were harmless.
The ALJ’s Step Five vocational finding (relying on a vocational expert) was upheld because omitted limitations were tied to allegations the court found were not supported by harmful error elsewhere in the record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Weight given to treating physician’s January 2012 opinion	Dr. Nelson’s opinion should control; it was uncontradicted and supported by his treatment notes	ALJ permissibly gave it little weight because it conflicted with Nelson’s own longitudinal findings and other examining and consulting opinions	Affirmed: ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons supported by record to discount Nelson’s opinion
Whether nonexamining or non‑treating opinions can constitute substantial evidence	Opposes reliance on nonexamining opinions to contradict treating opinion	Many conflicting opinions were from examiners (Trueblood, Whitehead) and the ALJ relied on multiple sources, so they constitute substantial evidence	Affirmed: ALJ properly relied on examining and other medical evidence; Morgan permits rejection when additional support exists
ALJ’s duty to develop the record by recontacting treating physician	ALJ should have recontacted Dr. Nelson to clarify the basis for his restrictive opinion	Duty to develop arises only if evidence is ambiguous or inadequate; record was adequate	Affirmed: no duty triggered because record was sufficient (McLeod)
Credibility of claimant’s symptom testimony and lay witness statements	Testimony and husband’s lay statements were credible and show greater limitations	ALJ cited clear, convincing, and germane reasons (inconsistencies, conservative treatment, failure to pursue/adhere to mental‑health care, and medical conflicts)	Affirmed: ALJ gave adequate reasons; error in two lay‑testimony reasons was harmless because at least one germane reason supported discounting

Key Cases Cited

Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard of review—de novo for district court review of Social Security appeals)
Morgan v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (treating‑physician rejection may be upheld when ALJ cites additional supporting evidence)
Beecher v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 693 (9th Cir. 1985) (limits on using physical‑examiner opinions to contradict mental‑health examiners)
McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) (ALJ’s duty to develop record triggered only by ambiguity or inadequacy)
Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (requirement for specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount claimant testimony)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (specialists’ opinions may be given more weight; harmless error principles)
Ryan v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may consider claimant’s treatment adherence and refusals)
Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (germane reason required to discount lay witness testimony)