Eric Belieu v. Andrew Saul
20-35401
| 9th Cir. | Jul 7, 2021Background
- Eric Belieu appealed the denial of Title II and XVI disability benefits after an ALJ found him not disabled.
- Belieu has significant dermatologic disease (urticaria pigmentosa) with recurrent skin outbreaks and systemic symptoms (fatigue, joint pain, diarrhea, headaches) documented across years of treatment.
- Michelle Womack, a certified physician’s assistant who treated Belieu for years, opined he would need to lie down during the day and likely miss four or more workdays per month; the ALJ gave her opinion little weight.
- The ALJ also discounted an examining psychologist’s opinion (Dr. N.K. Marks) and Belieu’s own symptom testimony (finding inconsistencies and exaggeration). The ALJ relied in part on isolated normal exam findings and Belieu’s reported daily activities.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Marks but reversed the ALJ’s rejection of Womack’s opinion and the discounting of Belieu’s symptom testimony, and remanded for further proceedings due to record conflicts and ambiguities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly rejected examining psychologist Dr. Marks | ALJ improperly discounted Marks' opinion | ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons tied to longitudinal record | Court: ALJ's reasons were specific and legitimate; any minor errors harmless |
| Whether ALJ properly rejected PA Womack's treating opinion (other-source) | Womack's opinion entitled to weight; ALJ failed to give germane reason to reject it | ALJ discounted it as checkbox form and inconsistent with unremarkable physical exams | Court: Reversed — ALJ erred; checkbox form and claimed inconsistency were not valid reasons |
| Whether ALJ validly discounted Belieu's symptom testimony | ALJ failed to give clear and convincing reasons; activities do not undermine testimony | ALJ relied on daily activities and claimed exaggeration to discount testimony | Court: Reversed — ALJ did not provide clear and convincing reasons; many purported contradictions unsupported |
| Remedy: remand or immediate benefits | Errors prejudicial; record conflicts require further development | Commissioner argued some findings supported; urged upholding | Court: Reversed and remanded for further proceedings due to conflicts/ambiguities |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2020) (standards for reviewing ALJ legal error and substantial-evidence review)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (treating-source and opinion-weighting principles)
- Popa v. Berryhill, 872 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2017) (may not reject an "other source" solely because opinion is check-box when treatment records exist)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (clear and convincing reasons required to reject claimant symptom testimony)
- Diedrich v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2017) (activities of daily living are not necessarily transferable to work)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (occasional symptom-free periods do not negate disability)
- Treichler v. Commissioner, 775 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand for further proceedings where record contains conflicts/ambiguities)
- Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2015) (harmless-error standard in social-security appeals)