Diana Woodmass v. Nancy Berryhill
707 F. App'x 432
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Diana Woodmass appealed denial of disability insurance benefits and SSI; Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded.
- ALJ found a decline in Woodmass’s condition constituting a new period of alleged disability and did not apply res judicata or a presumption of continued non-disability.
- The ALJ failed to consider medical opinions from Drs. Ting (nephrologist), Chaffee (neuropathy), and Van Eerd (cognitive limitations) that were in the administrative record from a prior adjudication.
- The ALJ credited other treating and examining physicians (Drs. Kline, DeCastro, D’Ambrosio) and discounted Woodmass’s testimony; he concluded Woodmass could perform past relevant work as a receptionist.
- The Ninth Circuit held the ALJ erred by ignoring the prior medical opinions, found some reasons for discounting other physicians valid but required those determinations to be revisited in light of the ignored opinions, and found credibility and lay-witness errors either proper or harmless.
- Court remanded for further proceedings; remand for benefits was inappropriate because additional factfinding is needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by ignoring prior medical opinions from Drs. Ting, Chaffee, Van Eerd | Woodmass: ALJ must consider and evaluate every medical opinion in the record for a new period of disability; opinions could change RFC and disability outcome | Commissioner: later-produced evidence was more persuasive; relied on more recent medical evidence | Court: Error — ALJ must consider those opinions; their omission was not harmless and requires remand |
| Whether res judicata/presumption of non-disability applied | Woodmass: decline after prior denial means no presumption applies | Commissioner: argued later evidence supports ALJ reliance and suggests harmlessness | Court: No presumption applies because this is a new period of alleged disability with changed circumstances |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating/examining physicians (Kline, DeCastro, D’Ambrosio) | Woodmass: weight should be reassessed after including omitted opinions | Commissioner: ALJ gave specific, legitimate, supported reasons to discount or credit these physicians | Court: ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons, but must revisit weights in light of previously ignored opinions |
| Whether credibility and lay-witness assessments were valid | Woodmass: challenged credibility and sister’s statement discounting errors | Commissioner: ALJ properly discounted claimant’s testimony and sister’s statements | Court: Credibility discounting upheld; ALJ gave proper reasons; failure to give germane reasons for sister’s statements was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must not ignore medical opinions and must provide valid reasons for discounting them)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (changed circumstances remove presumption of continued non-disability)
- Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1989) (prior medical evidence can support current claim; ALJ must consider it)
- Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2015) (error is harmless only if no reasonable ALJ could reach a different result)
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (inconsistencies between objective notes and functional opinions justify discounting)
- Morgan v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ may discount opinions based largely on claimant’s subjective complaints)
- Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (mild or moderate mental impairments may not be disabling without evidence of substantial functional limitation)
- Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1989) (daily activities can support adverse credibility findings)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (inconsistencies between testimony and record can discredit claimant)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (failure to follow prescribed treatment can support credibility findings; harmless-error principles)
- Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 1993) (lay witnesses may provide relevant observations about claimant’s limitations)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ must consider nonmedical source observations)
- Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2003) (remand for benefits appropriate only when further administrative factfinding is unnecessary)