677 F. App'x 344
9th Cir.2017Background
- Edith Bostwick appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits after an ALJ found she could perform other work despite being unable to do her past work as a sales representative.
- The ALJ assessed Bostwick with a residual functional capacity (RFC) for light work, relying on testimony and medical opinions from an examining physician, a testifying medical expert (Dr. Jensen), and two state medical consultants.
- The ALJ discounted a treating physician (Dr. Bronner)’s more restrictive opinion as inconsistent with the record and other medical opinions.
- The ALJ also found parts of Bostwick’s subjective testimony not credible to the extent it conflicted with the RFC, her daily activities, lack of need for an assistive device, and medical evidence.
- Bostwick submitted a new, conclusory letter from a treating physician to the Appeals Council; the court held it did not undermine the ALJ’s decision and remand was unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed medical opinions in forming RFC | ALJ should have credited Dr. Bronner’s restrictive opinion | ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Bronner as inconsistent with other examiners and the record | ALJ properly gave specific, substantial-evidence reasons to discount Dr. Bronner and relied on other experts (RFC for light work) |
| Whether the ALJ properly assessed Bostwick’s credibility | Bostwick argued her testimony about limitations should be credited | ALJ identified inconsistencies with medical evidence, activities, and need for assistive device | ALJ validly rejected portions of claimant’s testimony inconsistent with RFC and evidence |
| Whether new evidence to the Appeals Council requires remand | New treating-physician letter undermines ALJ’s decision | The conclusory letter is not dispositive and does not overcome substantial evidence | Remand unnecessary; conclusory opinion does not overturn ALJ’s determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ need not accept a treating physician’s conclusory opinion unsupported by clinical findings)
- Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1992) (limitations on weight given to brief, unsupported treating opinions)
- Howard v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (ALJ not required to discuss every piece of evidence)
- Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2010) (daily activities may bear on credibility)
- Nyman v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 528 (9th Cir. 1985) (conclusory expert opinions on ultimate disability question are not binding on ALJ)