Barbara Webber v. Carolyn Colvin
659 F. App'x 447
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Barbara Webber applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) alleging disabling depression and related symptoms, including frequent, unpredictable crying spells.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Webber not credible and denied benefits; the district court affirmed. Webber appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The ALJ discounted claimant and examiner testimony and omitted the crying spells from the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert (VE); the VE testified routine but unpredictable crying several times a day would preclude employment.
- The ALJ relied on several perceived inconsistencies in Webber’s reports (onset timing of depression, memory problems, activities like shopping/laundry and dressing grandchildren, and reports of suicidal ideation) and on selective use of drug-use reporting to discount a treating examiner’s opinion.
- The Ninth Circuit found multiple errors in the ALJ’s reasons for discounting testimony, concluding those errors undermined the adverse credibility finding and therefore the VE hypothetical and denial of benefits.
- The Court reversed and remanded for a new credibility determination consistent with Social Security Ruling 16-3p and reassessment of medical opinion weight as appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly assessed onset and course of depression | Webber: record shows depression diagnosis before SSI application (Nov 2009), contrary to ALJ's "couple weeks" finding | ALJ: claimant first complained of depression shortly before application | Rejected — ALJ mischaracterized record; error undermines credibility finding |
| Whether ALJ properly considered claimant's memory complaints | Webber: function reports show need for reminders/assistance with meds and grooming | ALJ: claimant did not report memory problems in function reports | Rejected — record shows she reported needing reminders; ALJ erred |
| Whether ALJ permissibly relied on daily activities to discredit | Webber: activities (watching TV, reading, occasional errands) are undemanding and not transferable to work | ALJ: claimant described a busy weekend, showing greater activity | Rejected — activities cited are not substantial work-related abilities; improper basis for adverse credibility finding |
| Whether ALJ properly treated inconsistent reports of suicidal ideation | Webber: reports reflect mental state at different times, not contradictions | ALJ: cited inconsistencies in reports about suicidal ideation | Rejected — reports occurred at different times and are not inconsistent |
| Whether ALJ could rely on inconsistent drug-use reporting to discredit claimant and examiners | Webber: admits inconsistency on marijuana use; ALJ used this to discredit treating examiner rather than claimant generally | ALJ: inconsistencies support adverse credibility findings | Limited — ALJ relied on drug-use inconsistency only to discredit Dr. Widlan; Court will not affirm for reasons ALJ did not state, so this does not salvage credibility finding |
| Whether VE hypothetical was adequate given omitted symptoms | Webber: omission of crying spells made hypothetical incomplete and the VE testimony required award of benefits | ALJ: did not include crying because claimant was discredited | Accepted — because credibility errors were reversible, omission was improper; VE testimony would have required benefits if crying credited |
Key Cases Cited
- Stout v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (SSA disability determinations upheld unless legal error or lacking substantial evidence)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (where impairment shown and no malingering, ALJ must give specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject symptom testimony)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (daily activities must translate to work-related functions to support adverse credibility finding)
- Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2001) (undemanding activities do not undermine disability claims)
- Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006) (inconsistent testimony about substance use can support adverse credibility findings)
- Verduzco v. Apfel, 188 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1999) (same on substance-use inconsistencies)
- Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2003) (court may not affirm ALJ on grounds the ALJ did not rely upon)
- Russell v. Sullivan, 930 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir. 1991) (VE hypotheticals must include all of claimant's limitations)