Dutraferea v. Berryhill
2:17-cv-01729
| D. Nev. | Aug 20, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Jeannie Dutraferea applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits alleging onset June 14, 2012; application was denied and ALJ Norman L. Bennett found her not disabled in a January 14, 2016 decision; Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final.
- ALJ found severe impairments of depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and status post treated breast cancer, but concluded Plaintiff did not meet a listing and assigned an RFC for all exertional levels with limits to short/superficial contact and simple, repetitive tasks; ALJ found she could perform past work as a flagger.
- Treating psychiatrist Susan Hood-Jackson, Ph.D., treated Dutraferea regularly (24 visits from Sept. 2013–Oct. 2014), completed a Mental Impairment Questionnaire opining marked impairments and four or more decompensation episodes in a year.
- ALJ rejected Dr. Hood-Jackson’s opinion as not persuasive, citing lack of documented decompensation, conclusory opinion, absence of significant clinical/lab abnormalities, and unspecified inconsistencies with treatment.
- District court reviewed the record, found the ALJ’s reasons legally insufficient under Ninth Circuit standards, credited the treating opinion as true, and concluded Plaintiff met Listing 12.04; the court remanded for an award of benefits rather than for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed the treating psychiatrist's opinion | Dutraferea: ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Hood-Jackson without specific and legitimate reasons; treating opinion is supported by longitudinal treatment notes and testing | Berryhill: ALJ relied on the record and non-examining consultants; treating opinion was conclusory and unsupported | Court: ALJ gave inadequate, non-specific reasons; rejecting the treating opinion was legal error |
| Whether remand should be for further proceedings or for benefits (credit-as-true) | Dutraferea: Record is complete; improperly discredited opinion, if credited, compels a finding of disability under the listing | Berryhill: Cross-motion to affirm (argued the ALJ's decision should stand) | Court: Credit-as-true standard met; remand for award of benefits ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing ALJ decisions; credit-as-true framework)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence standard and weighing evidence)
- Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (weight to treating physician opinions; clear and convincing / specific and legitimate standards)
- Varney v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 859 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir. 1988) (remand for benefits when credit-as-true applies)
- Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Security, 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (nature of psychiatric evidence; depression not proven solely by lab tests)
- Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226 (9th Cir. 1987) (claimant may prove disability by clinical psychiatric diagnoses and competent evidence)