Carrie Smith v. Nancy Berryhill
708 F. App'x 402
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Carrie Smith appealed the district court’s affirmation of the Commissioner’s denial of SSI disability benefits under Title XVI.
- The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the ALJ’s decision de novo.
- The ALJ found Smith did not meet or equal any Listings at step three and assigned a residual functional capacity (RFC) limiting her to perform certain work; a vocational expert (VE) testified jobs existed consistent with that RFC.
- The ALJ gave little weight to treating/examining letters (Dr. Ashcraft, Dr. Schroeder) for lack of specific functional limitations and reliance on claimant self-reporting.
- The ALJ discounted Smith’s symptom testimony based on inconsistent daily activities and limited objective medical support, and determined the record did not require further development.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith meets or equals a Listing at step three | Smith argued her mental impairments medically met or equaled a Listing | Commissioner argued record lacks evidence establishing medical equivalence | Court: No error; substantial evidence supports ALJ’s step-three conclusion |
| Whether ALJ erred in rejecting or discounting Dr. Ashcraft’s letter | Ashcraft’s letter should be credited | Commissioner: letter contained no functional limitation opinions so no need to reject it formally | Court: No error; letter contained no functional-opinion basis requiring reasons for rejection |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed Dr. Schroeder’s opinion | Schroeder’s opinion should be given controlling weight | Commissioner: opinion lacked specific functional limitations and relied on claimant’s reports | Court: ALJ permissibly gave it little weight for those reasons |
| Whether ALJ properly discredited Smith’s symptom testimony and RFC/hypothetical to VE | Smith argued testimony was credible and RFC/hypothetical incomplete | Commissioner: ALJ provided clear, convincing reasons (daily activities, objective record) and RFC reflected supported limitations | Court: ALJ’s credibility findings, RFC, and VE hypothetical were supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of de novo review on appeal)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (deference to ALJ when supported by substantial evidence)
- Hiler v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ need not discuss evidence that is neither significant nor probative)
- Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ must evaluate relevant evidence before concluding no listing met or equaled)
- Keyser v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 648 F.3d 721 (9th Cir. 2011) (ALJ may incorporate Psychiatric Review Technique analysis without completing form)
- Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2013) (ALJ must address equivalence only when claimant presents evidence toward equivalence)
- Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (no error in not rejecting physician report that gave no functional limitations)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (treating physician reliance on claimant’s self-report is a legitimate reason to discount opinion)
- Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ need not credit treating opinion lacking specific functional limitations when contrary examining opinion exists)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ may rely on claimant’s inconsistent daily activities to discredit testimony)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (lack of objective evidence may be considered as one factor in evaluating symptom testimony)
- McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) (ALJ’s duty to develop record triggered only by ambiguous or inadequate evidence)
- Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (deference to ALJ’s RFC if supported by substantial evidence)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (hypothetical to VE must include all limitations the ALJ finds credible and supported)