David Van Gilder v. Nancy Berryhill
703 F. App'x 597
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- David Van Gilder appealed the denial of Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI after an ALJ decision and district court affirmance.
- ALJ found Van Gilder could ambulate at least 100 feet and rejected his subjective pain testimony based on daily activities and gaps in treatment.
- ALJ relied in part on Van Gilder’s application for unemployment benefits (and accompanying declaration of ability/willingness to work) as evidence relevant to credibility.
- The ALJ did not expressly link the residual functional capacity (RFC) findings to the specific demands of Van Gilder’s past work and failed to make specific step-four findings.
- Van Gilder submitted a later successful disability determination and argued it constituted new, material evidence warranting remand; the later decision stated his condition worsened after the earlier ALJ decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred at step three by not citing evidence that impairments did not meet listings | ALJ failed to support finding that impairments did not meet/equal a listing | ALJ made other findings (ambulation) undermining listing criteria | Error, but harmless because listings require inability to ambulate effectively and ALJ found ambulation preserved |
| Whether ALJ gave legally sufficient reasons to reject pain testimony | Van Gilder contended his pain testimony was credible and ALJ erred in discounting it | ALJ relied on inconsistent daily activities, gaps in treatment, and unemployment claim as credibility evidence | ALJ provided specific, clear, convincing reasons; credibility finding upheld |
| Whether ALJ’s failure to address lay witness (mother) testimony was reversible | Van Gilder argued mother’s testimony was unaddressed and material | Defendant argued testimony was consistent with ALJ’s findings | Failure was harmless because mother’s testimony was consistent with ALJ conclusions |
| Whether ALJ made required specific findings linking RFC to past work and mental limitations | Van Gilder argued ALJ did not connect RFC to past work or mental limitations | Defendant argued existing record supported denial | Court found error and remanded for specific step-four findings on past work and mental impairments |
| Whether subsequent favorable disability decision is new, material evidence requiring remand | Van Gilder argued the later award showed inconsistent decisions and related evidence | Commissioner argued later decision addressed worsening after the ALJ’s decision and did not relate to the earlier period | Court held later decision did not present new, material evidence for the earlier period; no remand on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503 (9th Cir.) (step-three/listings error requires citation to supporting evidence)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.) (standard for rejecting claimant pain testimony)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir.) (gaps in treatment may support adverse credibility unless due to lack of funds)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.) (failed work attempt not alone dispositive on credibility)
- Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir.) (use of work-application statements in credibility assessments)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.) (harmless error doctrine for unaddressed lay testimony)
- Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840 (9th Cir.) (requirement that ALJ connect RFC to past work demands)
- Luna v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir.) (inconsistent benefit decisions can require remand)
- Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (post-decision evidence considered only if it relates to period before ALJ decision)