Charel Fisher v. Nancy Berryhill
708 F. App'x 384
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Fisher applied for Title II disability insurance benefits; ALJ denied and the district court affirmed. Fisher appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Central medical opinions at issue: Dr. Ballard (Dec 2012 and Nov 2013) and Dr. Irwin; RFC also considered Dr. Donahue’s observations about rumination and stress tolerance.
- ALJ gave Dr. Ballard’s opinions little weight (Dec 2012 opinion lacked 12-month durational support; Nov 2013 opinion relied on subjective complaints and had no objective fibromyalgia findings).
- ALJ reduced weight to parts of Dr. Irwin’s opinion as inconsistent with largely normal mental-status exams; incorporated credited limitations into the RFC.
- Lay witness statements were discounted because they mirrored Fisher’s subjective reports; the RFC and VE hypothetical included all limitations supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fisher preserved challenge to ALJ credibility finding | Fisher challenges ALJ’s adverse credibility finding | Commissioner contends issue waived for failure to raise below | Waived — Fisher failed to raise credibility challenge in district court |
| Whether ALJ properly rejected Dr. Ballard’s opinions | Ballard’s opinions should be credited | Commissioner argues opinions lack durational support and objective findings | Affirmed — ALJ permissibly gave little weight; Dec 2012 non‑durational and Nov 2013 relied on subjective complaints; any Appeals Council‑related error harmless |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed Dr. Irwin’s opinion | Irwin’s severe limitations should be adopted | Commissioner contends Irwin’s severe limits conflict with objective mental exams | Affirmed — ALJ reasonably rejected inconsistent portions and included credited limits in RFC |
| Whether lay witness testimony and RFC/VE were adequate | VE and RFC did not capture all limitations | Commissioner asserts RFC and hypothetical encompassed supported limits; lay testimony duplicated claimant’s reports | Affirmed — ALJ gave germane reasons to discount lay testimony; RFC and VE included all limitations supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Rounds v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of de novo review on appeal)
- Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (issues not raised below are waived unless purely legal)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (disability requires expected impairment duration of at least 12 months)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may reject treating opinion inconsistent with objective evidence)
- Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (Appeals Council‑considered evidence is part of the record)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error doctrine in social security cases)
- Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may adopt portions of medical opinions in RFC)
- Valentine v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ may discount lay testimony that merely repeats claimant’s subjective complaints)