David Khal v. Nancy Berryhill
690 F. App'x 499
9th Cir.2017Background
- Khal applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II; ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed; Khal appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Primary medical evidence included opinions from treating physician Paul Puziss, M.D., and two nonexamining reviewing physicians who found Khal could work with restrictions.
- Dr. Puziss opined Khal was "probably incapable of any kind of work" and later (2010) provided an RFC assessment dated after Khal’s date last insured.
- An impartial vocational expert (VE) testified Khal possessed transferable skills from his past work as a chiropractor to perform at least one sedentary job (information clerk).
- ALJ discounted Dr. Puziss’s opinions and found Khal’s and his wife’s symptom/lay testimony not fully credible for several stated reasons, producing an RFC that relied on the remaining evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected treating physician Puziss’s opinion | Khal: ALJ erred in giving little weight to treating physician’s opinion that he cannot work | Comm’r: Opinion contradicted by reviewing physicians and equivocal; ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons to discount it | Court: Affirmed— ALJ properly discounted Puziss for being equivocal, contradicted, untimely re: DLI, inconsistent, and unsupported |
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected 2010 RFC from Puziss (after date last insured) | Khal: ALJ should have credited the 2010 RFC | Comm’r: 2010 RFC was issued after date last insured, not limited to relevant period, inconsistent and unsupported by earlier exams | Court: Affirmed—ALJ gave clear-and-convincing reasons to discount 2010 RFC |
| Whether ALJ erred in discounting Khal’s and wife’s testimony | Khal: ALJ improperly rejected symptom testimony and lay witness statement | Comm’r: ALJ cited inconsistent activities, inconsistent reports of limitations, and failure to follow treatment (one harmless error noted about tax structuring) | Court: Affirmed—ALJ provided specific, clear-and-convincing, supported reasons; lay testimony discounted as similar to claimant’s testimony |
| Whether reliance on a single sedentary occupation at Step 5 was improper | Khal: ALJ’s Step 5 finding was flawed for relying on transferability to a single occupation | Comm’r: VE testimony properly established transferable skills sufficient for sedentary job; single job reliance permitted here | Court: Affirmed—ALJ permissibly relied on VE that claimant’s skilled past work transferred to the information clerk sedentary job |
Key Cases Cited
- Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for district court appeals of Social Security decisions)
- Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403 (9th Cir. 2015) (contradicted treating opinions require specific and legitimate reasons to reject)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ must provide specific and legitimate reasons to reject contradicted medical opinion)
- McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) (physician’s statement that claimant "could not work at all" is an issue reserved to the SSA)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may resolve ambiguities in medical evidence and credit equivocal opinions less)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ may reject physician restrictions inconsistent with daily activities)
- Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (medical reports must show functional limitations tied to symptoms)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (factors for evaluating claimant credibility)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (harmless-error review when ALJ gives multiple credibility reasons)
- Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (RFC and VE hypotheticals must include all credible limitations)
- Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinction in "significant range" analysis for light-vs-sedentary work)
- Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir. 1995) (Secretary may rely on vocational expert and administrative job information)