Dominguez v. Saul, 3:19-cv-07594

Background:

Plaintiff Raymond D., age 42, with long histories of bipolar disorder, ADHD, and substance-use disorders; various providers documented cognitive, memory, attention, and impulse-control deficits.
Psychologists Lesleigh Franklin and Elizabeth Walser performed a comprehensive evaluation finding marked limitations in attention/concentration, ability to complete a normal workday and maintain attendance, extreme impairment accepting instructions/responding to criticism, and significant social/behavioral limitations.
State non-examining agency consultants assessed moderate limitations and restricted Plaintiff to unskilled/simple work with routine, superficial contact with others; the ALJ gave those opinions great weight.
ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled, gave only partial weight to Franklin/Walser (rejecting several marked limitations as unexplained or inconsistent with other records), adopted an RFC limited to simple routine tasks with routine and superficial workplace contact, and found Plaintiff could do past or other work.
The ALJ also (erroneously) characterized past work as a courtesy clerk despite that job being more than 15 years prior; the ALJ alternatively relied on step-five vocational findings.
The district court reversed and remanded, holding the ALJ failed to provide specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting Franklin and Walser and failed adequately to explain reliance on non-examining consultants; remand was ordered for further proceedings (no immediate award of benefits).

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the examining psychologists’ opinions	ALJ improperly discounted Franklin & Walser without specific, legitimate, supported reasons; their marked limitations were explained by testing and history	ALJ permissibly gave partial weight and relied on other records, including non-examining consultants	Court: ALJ erred — failed to provide specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting key marked limitations
Whether the ALJ permissibly afforded great weight to non-examining state agency consultants	State consultants’ opinions conflict with examining psychologists and cannot supersede them without explanation	Defendant: consultants are experts familiar with SSA standards and their opinions were persuasive	Court: ALJ’s boilerplate rationale was inadequate; failure to explain supportability/consistency meant error
Whether the ALJ erred at step four by finding past relevant work as a Courtesy Clerk	Plaintiff: job was over 15 years ago and thus not past relevant work	Defendant: any error harmless because ALJ made alternative step-five findings	Court: ALJ erred in step four; step-five analysis depends on medical-opinion evaluation and requires reconsideration on remand
Remedy: credit-as-true vs. remand	Plaintiff seeks reversal and award of benefits under credit-as-true	Defendant opposes immediate benefits, urges remand for further proceedings	Court: Remand for further administrative proceedings — record needs development and credit-as-true not appropriate here

Key Cases Cited

Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (review standard: ALJ factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (definition and scope of substantial evidence)
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must provide specific and legitimate reasons for discounting examining opinions)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error framework in Social Security cases)
Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2020) (claimant’s burden at steps 1–4 and standard of review)
Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (ALJ must set out detailed, thorough summary of facts and conflicting clinical evidence)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (weighting treating/examining/non-examining opinions)
Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462 (9th Cir. 1996) (consequences of failing to explicitly reject a medical opinion)
Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2017) (credit-as-true framework and remand considerations)
Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (when remand for benefits may be proper)
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (listings require meeting all specified criteria)
Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2001) (use of Dictionary of Occupational Titles in assessing jobs)
Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (Social Security Rulings binding on ALJs unless plainly erroneous)