Dennis Robinson v. Nancy Berryhill
690 F. App'x 520
9th Cir.2017Background
- Dennis J. Robinson appealed the district court’s affirmance of an ALJ denial of Social Security disability benefits; Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- ALJ initially found Robinson disabled when substance use was considered, then found his substance abuse materially contributed to the disability, which mandates a denial under the statutory scheme.
- Medical record included conflicting opinions: treating/examining physicians (e.g., Dr. Lykins, Dr. Kodner) and other clinicians who attributed impairments to substance abuse; a non‑examining psychologist (Dr. Donahue) concluded disorder was primarily substance‑induced.
- ALJ assigned varying weight to medical opinions: gave Dr. Lykins “good weight” but discounted parts as inconsistent with later records; did not discuss Dr. Kodner’s report.
- ALJ discounted Robinson’s subjective testimony for specific, clear, and convincing reasons (daily activities, inconsistent statements about drug use, ability to tolerate limited interaction and non‑focused tasks).
- Dissent argued the ALJ erred by ignoring Dr. Kodner’s report and that the error was not harmless; would have remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ followed the correct stepwise analysis for substance‑abuse cases | Robinson argued the ALJ failed to properly evaluate whether his disability would remain absent substance use | Commissioner argued ALJ followed regulations and SSR guidance: found disabled with substance use, then found substance abuse material | Affirmed: ALJ followed required steps and applied the correct framework |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating/examining medical opinions (Dr. Lykins, Dr. Kodner) | Robinson contended the ALJ improperly discounted treating opinions and ignored Dr. Kodner | Commissioner maintained ALJ gave permissible reasons to discount (conflicts with later records) and omission of Dr. Kodner was harmless | Affirmed: ALJ provided specific, legitimate reasons to discount Lykins; failure to discuss Kodner was harmless because no reasonable ALJ would reach a different result |
| Whether ALJ permissibly relied on a non‑examining physician (Dr. Donahue) | Robinson argued non‑examining opinion is entitled to little weight | Commissioner argued Donahue was consistent with other clinicians and thus could constitute substantial evidence | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly relied on Donahue because his opinion was consistent with other medical evidence |
| Whether ALJ properly rejected claimant testimony | Robinson argued his testimony should be credited | Commissioner argued testimony conflicted with daily activities and inconsistent statements about drug use | Affirmed: ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review and framework for evaluating ALJ disability findings)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (standards for rejecting treating physician opinions when conflicts exist)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) ("clear and convincing" standard to reject an uncontradicted treating opinion)
- Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2015) (error in totally ignoring a treating doctor and harmless‑error analysis)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (a doctor’s failure to review other medical records can justify discounting the opinion)