Cashella Benjamin v. Nancy Berryhill
708 F. App'x 478
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Cashella Benjamin appealed the denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI after the ALJ and district court found her mental impairments non-severe and denied benefits.
- The ALJ concluded Benjamin’s depression and anxiety caused no more than minimal limitations in basic work activities and thus were not “severe.”
- The ALJ gave little weight to a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (Ellen Vargas) opinion as inconsistent with treatment notes; clinic doctors did not opine on more-than-minimal limitations.
- The ALJ found Benjamin’s impairments did not meet or equal Listing 12.06 and that the residual functional capacity (RFC) accounted for mild limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace.
- A vocational expert (VE) identified jobs consistent with the ALJ’s RFC; the ALJ’s hypothetical to the VE omitted significant mental limitations based on the record.
- Benjamin submitted additional medical evidence to the Appeals Council; the court held that evidence was not material and would not reasonably change the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step Two severity of mental impairments | Benjamin argued her depression/anxiety were severe and limited work ability | Commissioner argued record shows only minimal limitation and not severe | Court: Substantial evidence supports ALJ that impairments were non-severe |
| Weight given to non-acceptable medical source (LCSW) | Vargas’s opinion showed greater limitations and should be credited | ALJ discounted it as inconsistent with treatment notes; social-worker opinions need only germane reasons for discounting | Court: ALJ gave germane reason; discounting was proper |
| Step Three (Listing 12.06) and RFC incorporation | Benjamin contended her impairments met/equal Listing 12.06 and RFC failed to capture limitations | Commissioner: criteria for Listing 12.06 unmet; RFC and VE hypothetical incorporated mild limitations | Court: Substantial evidence the listings not met; RFC and VE hypothetical adequate |
| New evidence submitted to Appeals Council | Benjamin argued new records warranted remand | Commissioner argued new evidence not material and would not change decision | Court: New evidence not material; no reasonable possibility it would alter outcome; remand denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard and review framework)
- Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683 (9th Cir.) (definition of non-severe impairment)
- Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir.) (treating-source rules discussion)
- Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir.) (discounting "other source" opinions with germane reasons)
- Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (hypothetical to VE need only include supported limitations)
- Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (procedure for Appeals Council/new evidence review)
- Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453 (9th Cir.) (materiality standard for new evidence under § 405(g))
- Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.) (issues not raised in district court are waived)