Daniel Joslyn v. Nancy Berryhill
706 F. App'x 390
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Daniel Joslyn applied for Supplemental Security Income; ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed; Joslyn appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Treating physician Dr. Lang produced a January 2012 opinion (favorable to ability to work) and March 2013 treatment notes indicating worsening right-hand carpal tunnel syndrome requiring surgery.
- The ALJ gave significant weight to Dr. Lang’s January 2012 opinion and to consultative/exam opinions (e.g., Dr. Staley) when formulating Joslyn’s RFC, including manipulative limitations.
- The ALJ found Joslyn did not have a severe mental impairment (Dr. Wheeler’s adjustment disorder was transient and minimal) and discounted some of Joslyn’s symptom testimony for inconsistency with medical evidence and daily activities.
- A vocational expert testified that jobs existed within the ALJ’s RFC; however, the ALJ did not discuss Dr. Lang’s March 2013 notes about surgery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by failing to consider treating physician’s March 2013 notes indicating surgery was necessary | Joslyn: ALJ ignored Dr. Lang’s March 2013 treatment notes showing worsening carpal tunnel and need for surgery, which could require a more restrictive RFC | Commissioner: ALJ relied on other medical opinions and evidence; March 2013 notes were not outcome-determinative | Court: Reversed and remanded — ALJ erred by failing to address the treating physician’s March 2013 notes and that error could affect the RFC |
| Whether ALJ reasonably weighed Dr. Lang’s January 2012 opinion | Joslyn: January 2012 opinion conflicts with later notes and should not be relied on exclusively | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly gave significant weight to the treating physician’s January 2012 opinion as consistent with other evidence | Court: Substantial evidence supported giving significant weight to the January 2012 opinion, but error remained for ignoring March 2013 notes |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed Dr. Staley’s opinion | Joslyn: Dispute over manipulation limitations and consistency with records | Commissioner: ALJ properly credited Dr. Staley; ALJ incorporated manipulative limits despite one contested finding | Court: Substantial evidence supported ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Staley’s opinion |
| Whether ALJ permissibly rejected Joslyn’s subjective symptom testimony | Joslyn: Testimony was credible and should support more restrictive RFC | Commissioner: ALJ gave specific, clear, convincing reasons (medical inconsistencies and daily activities) | Court: ALJ’s credibility findings were supported by specific, clear, convincing reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of de novo review and framework for evaluating evidence)
- Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ errs by ignoring treating physician’s opinion; harmless-error standard)
- Erickson v. Shalala, 9 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1993) (ALJ must consider all factors affecting ability to work)
- Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (courts cannot deem errors harmless unless no reasonable ALJ could reach different result)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (weight due to treating physician and credibility evaluations)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (objective medical evidence as basis for adverse credibility findings)
- Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (permissible reliance on claimant’s daily activities when assessing credibility)