Danial Grammer v. Nancy Berryhill
706 F. App'x 383
| 9th Cir. | 2017

Background

  • Danial Grammer appealed the denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act; the district court affirmed and this Court reviewed de novo.
  • The ALJ found evidence that Grammer’s psychiatric impairments were materially related to drug or alcohol use and thus considered whether he would be disabled absent substance use.
  • The ALJ rejected several treating and examining opinions: Dr. Brown (psychiatric evaluation), Dr. Neims (opined Grammer disabled from SGA for 12 months), Dr. Eisenhauer (rely­ing on Dr. Brown), and non-acceptable medical source Ms. Chen, citing specific inconsistencies and other reasons.
  • The ALJ concluded Grammer’s reported history to some examiners was inaccurate, medical records lacked corroborating symptoms during periods of abstinence, and Grammer worked for three months after certain evaluations — factors used to discount opinions.
  • The ALJ found Grammer untimely requested a supplemental hearing about Dr. Pelc’s opinion and declined to discuss evidence the ALJ deemed neither significant nor probative of functional limitations absent substance use.
  • The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding the ALJ provided legally sufficient reasons to reject the contested opinions or that any errors were harmless because the RFC and record accounted for the limitations.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether ALJ properly rejected Dr. Brown’s opinion Dr. Brown’s opinion should be credited; it supported severe limitations ALJ: opinion based on Grammer’s inaccurate history, inconsistent with record and Grammer’s later work Affirmed — ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons to reject it
Whether ALJ erred rejecting Dr. Neims’s 12‑month disability conclusion Neims’s findings show long‑term disability ALJ: conclusory statement about disability not a medical opinion; other parts rejected on insufficiency Affirmed — conclusory disability statement properly rejected; any remaining error harmless because RFC covers limitations
Whether ALJ properly rejected Ms. Chen (non‑accepted source) Her observations should be credited as lay evidence ALJ: inconsistent with activities and medical record Affirmed — ALJ gave germane reasons to discount her testimony
Whether ALJ properly rejected Dr. Eisenhauer Eisenhauer’s opinion reliable independent support ALJ: relied entirely on Dr. Brown’s evaluation which was rejected Affirmed — permissible to reject opinion insufficiently supported
Whether substance abuse was material to disability Grammer: impairments disabling independent of substance use ALJ: record shows improvement/absence of symptoms during non‑use periods Affirmed — substantial evidence supports materiality finding
Whether ALJ erred by not addressing additional evidence or granting supplemental hearing Grammer: ALJ should have considered additional evidence and allowed hearing on Dr. Pelc ALJ: evidence not significant/probative; claimant untimely requested supplemental hearing Affirmed — ALJ not required to discuss immaterial evidence; substantial evidence supports procedural ruling

Key Cases Cited

  • Rounds v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996 (9th Cir.) (standard for de novo review statement)
  • Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (standards for rejecting treating physician opinions)
  • Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (rejecting opinions based on claimant‑provided inaccurate history)
  • Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (inconsistency with medical evidence justifies rejection)
  • Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (inconsistency with claimant activities may undercut medical opinion)
  • Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error doctrine in social security cases)
  • Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing medical opinions from conclusory disability statements)
  • Stubbs‑Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (RFC can subsume and render harmless certain physician opinions)
  • Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (lay testimony may be rejected for inconsistency with activities)
  • Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ may reject opinions inadequately supported by clinical findings)
  • Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2007) (analysis required whether disability remains absent substance abuse)
  • Hiler v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ need not discuss evidence that is neither significant nor probative)
  • Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (deference to ALJ when supported by substantial evidence)
Read the full case