Bertha Elizarraras v. Nancy A. Berryhill, 2:19-cv-05133

Plaintiff filed for DIB (protective filing July 22, 2015) alleging onset May 6, 2011; last insured date December 31, 2016. Hearing held April 24, 2018.
ALJ found severe impairments: lumbar degenerative disc disease, lumbar osteoporosis, diabetes, and hypertension. ALJ found no listed impairment met or equaled.
ALJ assessed an RFC for light work with limitations (20 lbs occasional/10 lbs frequent; sit/stand/walk 6 hours/8; frequent pushing/pulling and ramps/stairs; occasional ladders/stoops/kneel/crawl; must avoid hazards).
ALJ concluded Plaintiff could perform her past work as a claims adjudicator and, alternatively, other jobs existed in significant numbers; the Appeals Council denied review.
Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s evaluation of her subjective symptom testimony, the physician-opinion analysis, and the RFC. The district court reviewed and remanded for further administrative proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. ALJ's evaluation of Plaintiff's subjective symptom testimony	ALJ failed to give specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject Plaintiff’s testimony about pain, fatigue, and anxiety.	ALJ permissibly discounted testimony based on inconsistencies with daily activities, lack of treatment, and objective medical evidence.	Court: ALJ erred. Daily-activity finding was unsupported and non-specific; ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff’s uncontradicted explanation she could not afford mental-health treatment; objective inconsistency alone is insufficient. Testimony must be reassessed. Remand warranted.
2. Evaluation of physician opinions	Plaintiff argued ALJ improperly weighed medical opinion evidence (affecting RFC).	Commissioner defended ALJ’s opinion assignments (not fully argued in district court filing).	Court did not resolve on merits; remanded so ALJ can reassess opinions after properly evaluating claimant’s testimony and the record.
3. RFC determination and step‑four/five findings	RFC did not account for credited symptom testimony; step‑four/ five findings therefore unreliable.	Commissioner maintained RFC was supported by record and supported step‑four/ five findings.	Court: Because the ALJ must reassess credibility and medical-opinion evidence, RFC and vocational findings must be reevaluated on remand.

Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must set forth reasons permitting meaningful judicial review of credibility findings)
Treichler v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject testimony absent malingering)
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (caution in relying on ordinary daily activities to discredit pain testimony)
Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (daily activities must be shown transferable to work to discredit testimony)
Warre v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2006) (cannot deny benefits for failing to obtain treatment claimant cannot afford)
Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (court will not second-guess reasonable ALJ credibility determinations)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (substantial-evidence standard and harmless error principles)
Stout v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (crediting testimony may require award of benefits only when record compels that result)