Danny Ferguson v. Martin O'Malley
95 F.4th 1194
9th Cir.2024Background
- Danny Ray Ferguson applied for Social Security disability benefits, claiming multiple severe impairments, including chronic, debilitating headaches.
- After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Ferguson had several severe, medically determinable impairments but discounted his testimony regarding the severity and frequency of his headaches when assessing residual functional capacity (RFC).
- The ALJ concluded Ferguson could still perform certain jobs in the national economy, and denied benefits.
- The district court affirmed the ALJ’s denial of benefits.
- Ferguson appealed, arguing the ALJ incorrectly discounted his subjective symptom testimony without providing the required clear and convincing reasons.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and considered whether the ALJ’s reasons for discounting Ferguson’s testimony were legally sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ properly discount Ferguson’s symptom testimony about his headaches? | ALJ did not articulate specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting Ferguson’s testimony about headache severity. | Ferguson’s testimony was inconsistent with medical evidence, daily activities, and lack of aggressive treatment, discounting his credibility. | ALJ failed to provide the required clear and convincing reasons; discounting Ferguson’s symptom testimony was error. |
| Can the court affirm for reasons the ALJ did not rely upon? | Only the reasons asserted by the ALJ may be reviewed; the court cannot affirm on new grounds. | District court can affirm based on new grounds (such as conservative treatment). | Court may only rely on grounds stated by the ALJ; affirming for new reasons was error. |
| Must Ferguson provide independent medical evidence of headache severity? | Symptom testimony regarding severity may be sufficient if ALJ lacks clear, convincing contrary reasons; objective evidence not always required. | Claimant must produce independent medical evidence of headache severity, not just subjective reports. | Ferguson’s symptom testimony need not be corroborated by independent medical evidence if credited; defendant’s standard conflicts with Ninth Circuit precedent. |
| Is Ferguson’s daily activity level inconsistent with claimed headache limitations? | Daily activities are not inconsistent with episodic but severe headaches. | Daily activities show Ferguson is not as disabled as claimed. | Evidence of daily activities did not conflict with Ferguson’s testimony about having episodes of severe headaches. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must give specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting claimant's symptom testimony)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence review of ALJ's denial of benefits and symptom testimony standards)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (claimant need only show impairment could cause some degree of symptoms; clear and convincing reasons needed to reject testimony)
- Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1989) (ALJ impliedly discounts symptom testimony if it is not reflected in RFC despite credibility finding)
- Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (if evidence supports more than one rational interpretation, court must defer to ALJ)