Cynthia Farr v. Nancy Berryhill
706 F. App'x 363
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Cynthia Farr appealed the district court’s affirmation of the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits under Title II.
- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) evaluated medical opinions from treating physician Dr. Abbott and consulting examiner Dr. St. Louis, and considered lay witness statements (David Farr, Ms. West).
- ALJ discounted Farr’s subjective symptom testimony based on (1) successful treatment response, (2) inconsistencies between reported limitations and daily activities, and (3) Farr’s job layoff and receipt of unemployment while seeking full-time work.
- ALJ assigned significant weight to Dr. Abbott’s opinion and some weight to Dr. St. Louis’s opinion as consistent with objective testing and the record.
- ALJ found the residual functional capacity (RFC) included all limitations supported by substantial evidence and concluded Farr could perform her past relevant work.
- Farr challenged the weight given to medical opinions, the credibility findings, the rejection of lay witness testimony, and the past-work determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to treating physician (Dr. Abbott) | ALJ gave too much weight to Dr. Abbott | ALJ properly gave significant weight because opinion matched activities, treatment notes, overall record | Affirmed — weight appropriate; consistent with record |
| Weight given to consulting examiner (Dr. St. Louis) | ALJ erred in giving Dr. St. Louis "some weight" | Opinion was somewhat consistent with objective testing and accounted for claimed pain | Affirmed — some weight proper |
| Credibility of claimant’s symptom testimony | Farr argued ALJ improperly discounted her testimony about debilitating symptoms | ALJ offered specific, clear, convincing reasons supported by evidence (treatment response, ADL inconsistencies, unemployment benefits) | Affirmed — credibility discounting supported; any additional errors harmless |
| Lay witness testimony and past-work finding | ALJ improperly rejected lay testimony and misapplied past-work as generally performed/composite job issues | Lay testimony inconsistent with medical observations and with each other; Farr didn’t prove composite-job or inability to do past work as performed | Affirmed — germane reasons to discount lay testimony; Farr failed burden to show inability to perform past work |
Key Cases Cited
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (Social Security favors treating physician opinions)
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of de novo review for appeals)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (positive treatment response undermines disabling pain claims)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (ADLs may undercut symptom allegations)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (unemployment availability can undermine disability claim)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (harmless-error review of ALJ reasons)
- Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (assessing lay witness statements relative to claimant testimony)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (RFC must incorporate limitations supported by substantial evidence)
- Stacy v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 563 (9th Cir. 2016) (claimant bears burden to show inability to perform past relevant work)