Bernard Laborin v. Nancy Berryhill
867 F.3d 1151
9th Cir.2017Background
- Bernard Laborin appealed the denial of his Title II and XVI disability benefits after an ALJ found him not disabled and the district court affirmed.
- The ALJ assessed an RFC limiting Laborin to various exertional and environmental restrictions (e.g., lift/carry limits, stand/walk/sit hours, no right lower-extremity push/pull, avoid fumes/machinery, sit/stand at will).
- The ALJ used boilerplate language stating the claimant’s symptom testimony was not credited "to the extent inconsistent with the above RFC."
- Laborin challenged the ALJ’s credibility finding and argued the boilerplate approach improperly allowed the RFC to be determined before crediting his symptom testimony.
- The Ninth Circuit found the boilerplate formulation flawed as a matter of law when it implies the RFC was determined without properly evaluating credible symptom testimony, and held the ALJ failed to give clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Laborin’s pain testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ may discredit symptom testimony "to the extent inconsistent with RFC" | Laborin: That boilerplate reverses the required process and improperly discredits testimony before RFC is determined | Social Security (ALJ): RFC and credibility can be reconciled; standard phrasing reflects evaluation of consistency | The boilerplate is legally flawed when it implies RFC preceded evaluation of testimony; cannot be used to reject testimony without specific reasons |
| Whether ALJ gave legally sufficient reasons for discounting symptom testimony | Laborin: ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing, specific reasons identifying which testimony was not credible and what evidence contradicted it | ALJ/district court: Credibility findings supported by record and RFC limitations | Court: ALJ did not give clear and convincing reasons for rejecting pain testimony; remanded |
| Whether inclusion of boilerplate is per se reversible error | Laborin: Boilerplate demonstrates procedural error and harms the decision | Social Security: Boilerplate alone may be harmless if adequate reasons elsewhere | Court: Boilerplate is not automatically reversible but here it did not save the deficient credibility analysis; remand required |
| Proper relationship between RFC assessment and claimant testimony | Laborin: Testimony must be considered and incorporated into RFC; credibility evaluation must inform RFC | ALJ: RFC can be used to assess consistency of testimony | Court: RFC must be based on evidence including credible testimony; ALJ cannot discredit testimony for inconsistency with a pre-determined RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 862 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2017) (RFC must incorporate claimant’s credible symptom testimony; boilerplate problematic)
- Treichler v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (cannot infer testimony rejected merely from boilerplate language)
- Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) (boilerplate "gets things backwards" when credibility follows RFC)
- Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2012) (finding the boilerplate puts the cart before the horse)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (boilerplate improperly reverses the evaluation order)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must account for claimant’s subjective pain in RFC)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ required to give clear and convincing reasons when rejecting pain testimony)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (to reject testimony ALJ must identify which testimony is not credible and the contradictory evidence)