Bradley J Sullivan v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 5:16-cv-01716

Background

Plaintiff Bradley J. Sullivan applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging onset June 1, 2008; insured through March 31, 2014. ALJ denied benefits on March 24, 2015; Appeals Council denied review. Case appealed to district court.
ALJ found severe impairments including diabetes, hepatitis, kidney disease, degenerative spine disease, sleep apnea, neuropathy, obesity, depression, and anxiety; not disabling at step three.
ALJ assigned an RFC for light work with postural limits and restriction to semi‑skilled, non‑fast‑paced work; found plaintiff unable to perform past relevant work but capable of other jobs (management aide; general office clerk; office assistant).
Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s treatment of the psychiatric consultative examiner Dr. Tanya Scurry, who performed a May 4, 2013 psychiatric exam and opined moderate limitations in concentration, social interaction, persistence/pace, attendance, and ability to sustain gainful employment.
ALJ gave Dr. Scurry’s opinion "not great weight," finding it unsupported by treatment records and inconsistent with plaintiff’s statements; court found the ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons to reject the uncontradicted examining opinion.
District court vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded for further administrative proceedings, concluding further development could alter the RFC and disability finding.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly rejected consultative examiner Dr. Scurry’s opinion	ALJ failed to give specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting uncontradicted examining opinion	ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Scurry because she did not review records, her opinion was unsupported by treatment records, and inconsistent with plaintiff’s statements	Court held ALJ did not give clear and convincing reasons; remand required
Whether lack of corroborating treatment records justifies discounting examiner	Dr. Scurry’s clinical exam and testing supported her findings; state agency reviewers reached similar conclusions	Defendant asserted absence of treatment evidence during adjudication period undermines the opinion	Court held boilerplate claim of lack of support without record citation is inadequate
Whether plaintiff’s failure to report social limitations permits discounting opinion	Failure to mention specific social limitations does not prove they do not exist	Defendant relied on plaintiff’s statements as inconsistent with examiner	Court held plaintiff’s general mental health complaints were sufficient and non‑reporting of specific social limits is not a clear and convincing reason to reject opinion
Remedy: remand for further proceedings or immediate benefits	Plaintiff argued for crediting the opinion and awarding benefits	Defendant presumably urged remand for further proceedings	Court remanded for further administrative proceedings rather than awarding benefits because further development may change RFC and outcome

Key Cases Cited

Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may not use boilerplate to reject medical opinions; must provide specific reasons)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (examining physician’s opinion requires clear and convincing reasons if uncontradicted; specific and legitimate reasons if contradicted)
Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (statement that opinion lacks objective support is insufficient without explanation)
Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2006) (failure to mention limitations in application or hearing is not a valid basis to reject physician opinion)
Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand appropriate where record creates serious doubt and further administrative proceedings could remedy defects)
Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard for remand vs. immediate award of benefits)